User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 10

Re: Chak De article
Hi Dwaipayanc, Hope all is well. I've been working on the 2007 film article, Chak De India and think it is at the point where - with help from some other editors - it could move to at least GA status. I'm (not very successfully) trying to take a semi-wikibreak so that I can attend to RL - but am checking in every once and awhile. I know you have a number of RL commitments as well, so if you don't have the time to work on it, that's fine - if you know of other editors who might want to put some time into it, that would be also great. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed reply. I have not gone through the article. Some quick comments: "Notable quotes" - section not needed. References absolutely unformatted.


 * Suggestion: Presently some editors are doing great jobs in Indian film article. Several article [|have become] GA. You can try to communicate with the related users, such as User:Mspraveen. I shall try to chip in.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I moved the quotes to Wikiquote (with a link to that site). Yes, the references need to be formatted. I've reworked the page quite a bit over the past two weeks - formatting and adding of material by other editors will greatly enhance it. Hope you have a chance to contribute - and I will contact User:Mspraveen as you suggested. Hope all is well. -Classicfilms (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've formatted the references. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope :) Retrieval dates are missing. Anyway, that's not a tough job. Once retrieval dates are there, reference format should be adequate for GA purpose, I guess.
 * I have not seen the film in cinema hall or DVD. So do not remember the plot in detail. However, I see in the article the last paragraph tells about almost the whole second-half (if I am correct in remembering the plot). Although it's always good to follow summary form, do you think it is adequate to tell the whole story of their world cup in one or two sentences?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack! :-) As you can probably guess, references are my least favorite part of Wikipedia articles :-) If you have some time, and would like to add the dates, I'd appreciate it. I actually have to sign off for a few days to meet a RL deadline. If you don't have time, I could attend to it later in the week.
 * I'm actually not convinced it's ready for GA even with the dates, which is why I'm trying to get more editors to work on it. The production section needs more development, and the reviews need more balance. A few more pairs of eyes to develop this would really help.
 * The film is out on DVD so you should be able to rent it. Not only is it an excellent film and IMHO one of SRK's best, it was a hit, won awards, and brought attention to a neglected subject. So I think the topic is GA worthy. I realize you can't really contribute until you see the film - so I hope you will have a chance.
 * I agree with you about the plot summary. Perhaps if you see the film, you could rework it (the current version is one which was reduced from a previous version which was longer than MOS rules allow).
 * Anyway, I'll check back in in a few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw that you added some of the dates! If you have time to add more, that would be great. Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I shall attend to the reference formatting, and do the date addition, probably tomorrow. Well, I saw the film, in some illegal site in the internet. The print was bad.
 * How are you, bye the way? I am in India now, and will be moving to Connecticut in July.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the film again, it is really worth it. Thanks for attending to this. Great to hear you are moving to Conn. It's a beautiful state, you'll like it. I'm fine, just so swamped in RL and spending too much time here in the Wikipedia :-) Hopefully in a few weeks there will be more balance. Looking forward to working on the article with you in a week or so. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chak De India
Hi there. Thanks for the message. Well, I had a long thought on attempting the article and eventually I realized that I'm already backlogged with several more film-related articles such as Nanhe Jaisalmer, Jab We Met and others from the Tollywood industry. My apologies, but, I cannot realistically estimate as to when I shall be able to contribute to it. As far as others are concerned, you may try and consult with User:Shshshsh maybe. I'm not really sure coz I'm kinda new here. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chak De India contd.
Just an fyi - I have a little more flex time at the moment though I may go on break again next week. Thanks for fixing all of the refs. I created a related article on Women's field hockey and updated related links. The article looks better and there have been some great additions over the past few days as well - so over the next few months hopefully it will grow. I'm going to take a look at Taare Zameen Par as well since the article needs some attention. Have you seen it? It may interest you since you are in the medical field. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Yes, User:Shshshsh s helping greatlt in the article. Production definitely needs more stuffs I also think it would be ready within a month or so.


 * Regarding, Taare Zameen Par, yes I have seen the movie. Indeed, I usually do not miss any significant Hindi cinemas (and at least those which are both box office success and otherwise acclaimed) :) And I see Taare... is also in pretty good condition.Dwaipayan (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I've started working on Taare Zameen Par and will focus on it for a little while since there is still some clean up to do - both articles are probably worth watching since after a few months they may be ready for GA. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain
I hope you understand what you would do. First, "England" can use in various area in field hockey, but not in Olympics and Champions Trophy, also Champions Challenge. Second, do not add irrelevant template to one article. I hope you can understand, thank you. --Aleen f 1 07:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, my intentions were good. Thank you for correcting my mistakes. I added the template to the article because I had seen it in other articles but will not revert your edit. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I am trying to build the page India women's national field hockey team which did not exist until yesterday, but am not as experienced with the hockey pages as you are. Any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as you did something correct, informatics, that is enough. You can add current squad too for India hockey, if you have information for that. If you need my help, you can leave any message in my talk page. I'm willing to help you if i can. I'm always BOLD. --Aleen f 1 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep all this in mind. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CDI
Hello friend!

I see you are very keen to improve the Chak De India article and raise its status as higher as possible. Just dropped to say that you can count me in. :)

I started already copyediting and organising it a few days ago; the article has a long way to go, but I believe that we can make the best of it with some dedication and improvement.

Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I am going to attempt another wikibreak so I'll be coming and going but with more people getting involved it looks like the article will grow and develop. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Field hockey
Sorry, i have to make it clear, please use "field hockey" to identify a person if a name has been create before, like Surinder Kaur. Don't use "hockey", because people can simply confuse whether she is "ice hockey" or "field hockey" player, we need a clarification, not simply to confuse people. You did nothing wrong, but just a note for you. Thanks. --Aleen f 1 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. Sorry about that, I should have guessed to make this distinction. I'll go ahead and fix this. Thanks so much for the heads up, I really appreciate it. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chak De Credits
Great job cleaning up the Chak De India article. Thanks for your help with it - particularly linking all of the dates. I wasn't aware of that MOS rule. I made a few minor changes, but nothing major.

I would like to discuss your edit to the cast list. The list was previously organized alphabetically by first name which is why Vidya was at the bottom.

Take a look at this interview with Shimit Amin (cited in the plot summary) -rediff asks, "The promos seem to reveal -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this is a 'no-heroine' film. Isn't that a big risk?" and Amin answers, "Yes, there are no heroines. That was something we didn't require because of the way the story was carved out." http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/aug/07shimit.htm

Since we can only post according to references, this would seem to preclude putting Vidya first. My only other suggestion would be to find a reference justifying putting her first. If not, I think we should put her back down at the bottom to maintain alphabetical order.

Again, good work. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you say, and yes, it's definitely a no-heroine film. The case is, Vidya's role is much meatier, she is the senior among all the young debutantes, and, correct me if I'm wrong (I don't remember), she received top-billing in the film itself (although this is something that doesn't matter, as we on the Indian cinema group decided, film credits are inconsistent, unfair and mostly inaccessible, so we have decided not to go according to film credits in general).


 * You can see this link, from indiaFM -- Vidya is credited second, right after Shahrukh.


 * Nevertheless, feel free to restore the cast section if you still feel it should be listed alphabetically. I have absolutely no problem with that. :) Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Impressive argument and fair. She is also credited as the first Chak De girl on the IMDB page. On the official site however, "Preeti Sabarwal" is listed as first in the character description page and the actress who portrays her, Sagarika Ghatge, receives top billing. So I went ahead and moved the name to the bottom of the list for a few reasons. Lists sometimes get out of control and difficult to manage if there isn't a means to organize them. We don't have to stay with alph. by first name if you can suggest a better way - I just think there should be some organizing structure. Secondly, the article I cited reflects a larger theme of the film which is the idea of unity among the characters, something which was reflected for example when the entire group of 16 won the best supporting actress award. Since this is the case, the WP should reflect the intentions of the filmmakers.


 * I hope you continue to work on the page since you have a lot of experience with film articles. You are right, it still needs a great deal of development and I hope even more people eventually become involved since that is what makes for a successful article. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I agree. There should be a structure for that, but Bollywood is inconsistent in this case. Movie producers play games with name placement to keep stars happy. Everyone wants top billing. That is why cast is sometimes in order of appearance, sometimes in alphabetical order, and sometimes it is even divided and ordered differently at the opening credits and at the end credits. But the credit order mostly and usually goes according to seniority; it is a major Bollywood norm, when crediting the main saleable leads. This is not accepted on Wikipedia, for three main reasons. A) There must be some consistent rule when it comes to an encyclopedia. B) It's unfair. C) Film credites are mostly inaccessible, and there is no way to prove that the order is absolutely correct.
 * That is why, when it comes to casting the main actors (I mean, leading and supporting of first grade), we usually cast the leading pair first, and then the supporting roles.
 * In our case, there are 16 girls who have important roles, therefore alphabetical order is the most perfect option.
 * Yes, I'll keep working on it. I'm a bit busy with the Preity Zinta article (GA already achieved) and now I'm waiting the peer review to get over, and take it to FAC.
 * My best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Squads
It is a bad idea if you develop squads just for India and USA, and leave many empty headings inside. Also if can please create in new article, also if you can listing all the squads, otherwise it prove waste. All can be found in official website. If can, please add players number.

If the player number in random style, you can use this:


 * 1) Surinder Kaur

Otherwise just list straight if number are line up start from 1 until the end.

Thank you. Any help, please leave message in my talk page. --Aleen f 1 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another is, the page will be growth as the event progress, so, that's why creating in new page is necessary. --Aleen f 1 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can make a new article but I'm having a little trouble understanding part of your post. Can you clarify the following for me:

"If can, please add players number.

If the player number in random style, you can use this:


 * 1) Surinder Kaur

Otherwise just list straight if number are line up start from 1 until the end."

Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, the player number in each squad, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. If that is 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, that style can help you determine the number. Example will be output as 2, change the value 3 will output as 3. If the number listing as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then just add the # sign. Understand? --Aleen f 1 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's better. Let me give it a shot. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, to get you easy, i will develop the code to make me and you easy, you can see "my tools" in my user page. Go there and take a look soon. :) --Aleen f 1 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Women’s field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2008 Summer Olympics squads, please create in this title, thank you for your cooperation. I will cleanup if necessary --Aleen f 1 04:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem and thanks for all of your help. The title is fine. It may take awhile for me to put this together. For now, I will use the # method of sorting but perhaps at a later date, player numbers can be added. As it is, it is a bit of work to make this. I'll let you know when it is finished-Classicfilms (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New article created
Ok, here you go: Women’s field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2008 Summer Olympics squads
 * 1) Go ahead and clean up where necessary. I used the second option from your tools page - however, the numbering system created two columns 1-9, rather than a second column, 10-18. So, you might need to tweak that.
 * 2) I created a link to this page here - however if you want to put it somewhere else, go ahead.
 * Have fun and thanks for the help, -Classicfilms (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic job! I was really perplexed as to how to resolve the numbering - I looked at how you did it and was quite impressed. Thanks for the clean up on both of the pages, it all looks great!-Classicfilms (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

CDI
I must say your work on Chak De India is brilliant! I'm sorry I can't be much present to extend a helping hand, I'm just very busy with another article. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Thanks for the nice feedback. Don't worry about it - if you have a chance to clean up the article at another point go ahead but otherwise I know you are working on a few other articles. I just thought I'd see what I could do with the production section since I didn't like the tag there. Anyway, thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job
Hello Classicfilms, I was browsing through the articles of Taare Zameen Par and Chak De India, and must I say you've done a fabulous work on both of those articles. Keep up the good work!! =) Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk  18:30, 1 May 2008
 * Hi Bolly wood Dreamz   Talk  How nice of you. Thank you! They are both excellent films and evidence of just how good Bollywood can be so it has been a pleasure to work on both articles. I hope to see your input at some point in the future. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome!! I definitely agree with you about Chak De India and Taare Zameen Par being excellent films. It just goes to show that Bollywood is capabale of so much more than what people tend to believe. Another excellent film was Lage Raho Munnabhai, an article that you also helped to become an FA. If I have time, I will most definitely help out with the articles. BTW, my name is Rahul and you can call me that if you want to. It has been a pleasure knowing you. As I said before, "Keep up the good work!!" It is good to see Bollywood articles improving so much. Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk  03:31, 2 May 2008
 * Great! Hope you have a chance to work on either or both of the film articles. I'd like to see them elevated to G.A. status. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, both the articles are developing greatly. Hope both will be ready for GAC soon. Great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you. Thanks for the feedback. If you have a chance to go through either of the articles, I would appreciate it. The plot sections both need work, particularly Chak De India which exceeds the word limit according to the guidelines:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot


 * Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I shall have a look at them, but probably after a few days. Bye the way, Satyajit Ray is in the main page today.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey!! That's great news!! Congrats, I know you worked on that article. Ray is, of course, one of my favorite filmmakers. It's great to see another Indian film article reach F.A. As for the other articles, of course, RL commitments always take priority. Look at them when and if you can. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On Chak De India
Hi! I was going through the article. The "Production" is full of long quotes. It needs re-writing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Sure, if you make some edits to the section I'd be happy to take a look. Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh you are online :) Yeah, I shall try to have a go at it. Meanwhile, Pather Panchali is getting substantial reviews. Regarding CDI, the later portion of the article looks better than the initial parts. I have not gone through the plot though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am online :) Pather Panchali looks fantastic - isn't it ready to go up for G.A. yet? Let me know and I will vote when the time comes. As for CDI, yes - the plot summary is beyond the Wikiproject film guidelines limit and needs to be reduced. The production section does need a re-write. I'm hoping that other editors will chip in at some point to help upgrade the state of the article. We also need to add one or two reviews that are more critical of the film but I haven't been able to find any from reliable sources. I know you are busy with PP at the moment - perhaps when that has made GA you can take a look at this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did a quick edit in some parts of "Production". Seems I did a severe edit. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! The important point is to make certain that the facts are presented in an accurate fashion which is what you did with your edit. When dealing with controversial material, I tend to like to quote directly from the source though I have always felt, as you pointed out, that there were too many block quotes. I'd really like to push this article to GA and eventually to FA - it's a unique film and one which I think could make a great FA article. But I can't do it alone and appreciate help from other editors. Thanks for your input, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New question
Ok, I've removed all of the tables. As I just wrote, you made a valid case for the current limitation. Now I have a new question. Currently the only table is "Filmfare" - best film. As you know, there are two categories - "Filmfare" - best film and "Filmfare" Critics choice best film. I am wondering how it is not POV to limit this table to only the best film category and not the critics choice one? Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I just wanted to let you know that the discussions mostly involved the great User:Zora, and the tables were actually added by Gren. I am yet to form an opinion on your concern - I had not thought about that. Well, in fact the case is that "Best Movie" is the major award, and critics is a section conducted by critics -- to make all directors happy. I have no problem adding it (in fact, I appreciate the critics awards more than the popular awards). It is by all means a Filmfare Award given to a film for its excellence. Do you think it's worth? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I say, add that. Definitely. It is an award given directly to a film. Critics or popular - it must be added. What do you think? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip about where the discussions began. In the future, if I make edits to film articles that go against a discussion such as this one, could you clue me in first? It's so hard to keep track of all the decisions made in the WP. I do think that if POV is a concern, then both "Best Film" and "Critics Best Film" should be included - to pick one and not the other is POV. I don't want to give you more work - I'll just go ahead and add the tables. I'll put a note on your page to let you know when they are finished. Thanks for your help :-) - Classicfilms (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added tables for Filmfare Critics Award for Best Movie from the years 1994 - 2008, beginning with Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa, since this was the most consistent path (i.e. in terms of a smooth chronological list). The only glitch is with Halo the 2001 winner which does not have an article. So I suppose future film projects would be to create an article for this film and to fill in the gaps and create articles for the winners prior to 1994. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh great work indeed! Yes, many films have to be created. Tell me, do you watch Indian films regularly? I mean, are you a Bollywood fan? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I like all kinds of films. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We meet again
Hello User:Classicfilms, it's me Rahul (Bollywood Dreamz)!! As you can see, Bollywood articles are really improving these days and I would really like to improve more of them. First on my list is actress Kareena Kapoor's page. Looking at your work on articles like Lage Raho Munna Bhai, Taare Zameen Par and Chak De India, I was wondering if you could help me copyedit Kapoor's article. After doing some copyedits, I was going to start a peer review for the article and ultimately nominating it for a GA. That is as far as I would like it to go. Could you please help me as I would really appreciate it?? Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk  20:25, 22 June 2008


 * Hi there - Thanks for asking. I tend to focus on articles about films, rather than articles on actors and I'm not very familiar with Kareena Kapoor either. So I'm going to have to say that while I'm happy to vote on the article or offer minor suggestions, I'm not sure I would be able to offer much help with bringin it to GA. You might want to contact User:Shshshsh who helped recently helped bring to FA an article on actress Preity Zinta - as well as User:Dwaipayanc who is very knowledgeable. I'm also keen to bring Taare Zameen Par and Chak De India to GA status so if you would be interested in working on those two articles, it would be great too. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Chak De India
Thanks for your edit to Chak De India. You raised a fair point and perhaps can offer some advice as to how to describe the film. It is a fictional story, with a fictional cast of characters and fictional games. However, it is based upon a series of interviews conducted with members of the real team and their 2002 win in England. Do you think that, as written, this distinction is clearly made? Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has some issues, like the first paragraph of the Plot section needing a reference, but it's pretty good otherwise. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just significantly reduced the plot and removed the references. If you could take a look and let me know what you think, I would appreciate it. Also, if you have other specific suggestions or critiques to improve the article, please let me know. Again, thanks for taking a look. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Chak De GAN
Hi Dwaipayanc - How's everything? I know you are on break but I thought I'd let you know that I've nominated Chak De India for WP:GAN. To do so, I had to significantly reduce the plot which was about 1000 words over the normal limit of 900 words. I think that this is potentially both a GA and FA article. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! How are you? Yes I noticed in my watchlist that Chak De was in GAN. Unfortunately i do not have the time to go through the article properly. It seemed the lead is short. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All is well, just going back to some articles that seem to have potential. I understand about time, no pressure...When you do have a moment, if you could tell me what the lead needs to make it stronger, I would appreciate it. Good to hear from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, two sentences on the plot would be nice in the lead. Also, the real life inspiration for the film may be added. These two aspects will be good for the second paragraph of the lead. The third paragraph of the lead may contain the box office and critical and award success. The Margaret Herrick library factoid in the lead seems unnecessary (although I have no idea how prestigious that is).
 * At present the last sentence of teh first para of the leads reads ,"..Khan and Chak De girls". I think it would be better to explain the "Chak De" girls here (eg, the players that the coach handpicked to play... etc).--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Let me think about these points and I'll let you know when I've revised the intro. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-wrote the lead. When you have a free moment, could you take a look? Make any changes that you feel are necessary or let me know on my talk page what can be improved. Thanks so much, -Classicfilms (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * EXCELLENT! How about adding in the plot return of Khan to his ancestral home head held high at the end of the movie?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made the changes. Take a look and let me know what you think. Also, the article is seriously in need of free images but I can't seem to find any - not even of SRK. If you have thoughts or ideas, let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chak De India GAN
I am reviewing your article Chak De India for GA and have placed my comments at Talk:Chak De India/GA1. It is a wonderful article, and the issues I bring up can be easily fixed. I also did a little copy editing of minor issues. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Matisse, - lol just when I thought I'd take a break :-)  - thank you so much, I'll take a look and get back to you shortly. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the changes that you suggested. Take a look and let me know what else needs to be done. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K. Give me a few minutes or so. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take your time. Just to let you know, I altered one of my edits and left a note on the talk page. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for tweaking the sentence as it is a bit awkward. The only problem with "The film's influence was noted when..." is that it is in the passive voice - I know that the use of the passive is up for debate in the WP but I try to avoid it when possible. Maybe we need to restructure the paragraph. Any other ideas? -Classicfilms (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I messed it up as I must have been looking at a unrefreshed version. I was going to put back what you suggested on the GA1 page: The suspension of the Indian Hockey Federation in April, 2008 emphasized the film's influence - is that ok? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem - refresh is always a pain... sentence is fine... -Classicfilms (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out why the record title/ singers don't line up under CD (Soundtrack). Not something to prevent GA though. This article was a pleasure to read. Thanks!  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmmm. Lines up on my computer - the display probably varies from computer to computer. Thanks so much for the review! -Classicfilms (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Hi Dwai - Good news, Chak De India is now a GA. Thanks for your help!-Classicfilms (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, congrats for getting Chak De GA-ed! wonderful. Sorry could not be of much help after the lead. Anyway, that was not needed either :) Great work! Are you working on some more articles?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Actually, you did help quite a bit. Two thoughts - the first is that eventually I'd like to see Chak De move to FAC but I think it will need a fresh set of eyes - I'm sure there is more that we could add but I'd need a new perspective. The other - I'd like to see Taare Zameen Par go for GAN next but it still needs a lot of work - more could be added, the large quotes integrated and so forth. It's a wonderful and quite unique film (from what I can tell, the only feature film with the issue of dyslexia as the main theme rather than as one of many subplots) which makes innovative use of CG. Not being nominated for an Oscar shouldn't really determine the fate of this film and I think that with a little bit of help from other Wikipedians, it could grow into a fine article. I think that's it for now. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add that I also think Parineeta (2005 film) is a good candidate to push towards FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Chak De India
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) 17:55, 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."

Definitely
The article is by far in excellent shape (thanks to your work). Whenever I have some extra time, I'll take a more thorough look through it, will make some copyedits and add comments on the talk page. It's better if the article gets as much as possible eyes and feedbacks before it goes to GAN. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shahid and thanks for the nice words. Yes, I've been working relatively alone on Taare Zameen Par for far too long - it would be great to have other editors work on and develop it. It may be a matter of going through the references which are already included and developing sections such as production and reception and that will take the work of many sets of eyes. Now I have to get back to other work :-) -Classicfilms (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Feedbacks from uninvolved parties before it goes to GAN will assure its readiness. In the future I would like to see Chak De India at FAC. The Lage Raho success must be repeated. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would also like to see CDI in FAC. Perhaps as other editors contribute to both articles, they will both develop in that direction. I'll be periodically breaking for other work but I'll check in when I have some time. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Chak De India
Hi. I am not sure what it takes to get to FA. I have done 3 GA films, and am considering bringing Krrish back to GA as it was recently de-listed. What is the difference? BollyJeff ||  talk  03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The standards are much, much higher for everything - the quality of writing, the references used and the amount of information. Much more information is expected for an FA. Since you are working on getting Krrish back to the GA level, do that. I can clean up CDI on my own - but if you have questions about the process, let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will keep an eye on what you are doing there. BollyJeff  ||  talk  04:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific, thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I don't mind doing anything at Wiki and would also love to know the process but unfortunately I work at Wiki from my workplace and thus I have very limited access to News, Media, Entertainment and all such related websites. Almost everything is blocked here and this is the primary reason, I fail in expanding Start and Stub Class articles to bring it to atleast C or B class. I spend most of my time in reverting vandalism, fixing wikilinks, grammar, spelling corrections etc. With access to only Rediff and Zee News, i was able to add some stuffs for Kahaani and Agneepath. Coming to Chak De India, hats off to you for being the solo contributor and to make it a GA. Apart from fixing dead links, finding new sources or replacing the old ones, I'll try having a look and polish it from every possible way I can. To help you out, you might be knowing User:Meryam90 who might be interested since she works majorly on SRK's related articles. Though i never interacted with her, I came to know her by reading some lengthy discussions. Take care and All the very best for CDI FA !!! --Msrag (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to working on the Wikipedia, what matters the most is having a group of people contributing whatever they can offer. As I said, I have a lot going on in real life so that is my drawback (i.e. time). However, FAs can only happen when a number of people contribute to an article in any way that they can. Your skills at " reverting vandalism, fixing wikilinks, grammar, spelling corrections" are enormously important ones and that would be a great help to the CDI article. The biggest challenge I've faced over the years is finding people who have the interest in working on it at all. FAs happen over time (as do GAs), so as more people contribute what they can, the article will improve on its own. Thanks for your help, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, any smell of FAC is enticing for me! Not sure how much effort I will be able to give though. Will keep an eye. Let me check out the article now, have not read it in years!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick glance on the article. Unfortunately, it seems to be not near FAC as of now :( It would need loads of work. If you can do it, Classicfilms, it will be great, as the film is a really significant and good one. The Production section seems to be the most deficient. Production may not need sub-headings (as in the case of Lage Raho...). --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, yeah, I am well aware of the fact that it is far from FAC in terms of content. Part of the problem I faced when working more regularly on it awhile back was simply the lack of overall help I had in building the article. I concur with you that it still needs a lot of development (i.e. finding sources, digging through existing sources and expanding). I can also do that slowly over time (since time is always a factor for me) but it would help if I could still have a team of people out there to keep on eye out for vandals, copyediting, excellent suggestions (such as the one you offer above) etc. So if you could just stay in the background for now as I figure out ways to build it, that would be great. The film is worthy of an FA article so it is worth the time. Lage Raho took quite a bit of effort to build up, at least a year - and I did a lot of that, but it really helped to have others keep an eye on the process. That's why I suggested to keep it on your watch list as I figure out ways to build it up - and spread the word that I need people to help develop it. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you have suggestions about how to deal with the translation of the title in English (see the talk page) that would be great. I suspect it is a constant issue with Indian film articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

CDI
Alright, I am very charged up about working on Chak De since it's like My 2nd fav movie of all time...for ideas, I have TONS so no worries...U can always refer to Ra.One for all kind of layouts and creative additions since I believe the article is the most complete we have. Well, I am here because I happen to have 2 exams tomorrow and 1 on Friday and therefor I might not be able to edit but in case you would be here, I thought I'd leave you some suggestions u can work on:
 * Release section:
 * Asian Film Festival in Jeddah to open with Chak De India 1
 * “Chak De India” sets out to conquer Latin America2
 * Indian (Cricket)team watches Chak De! India (this can also be expanded & added to impact section) 3

(which should be split into 2 sub-sections (India & Overseas)) and then we can add a sammury which hilights the aspects which were acclaimed and other remarks made by various critics. Since the actual links of these reviews are missin, quoting from the official website of the film is also variable.
 * Critical reception section

Oh and Raja Sen's review from rediff is missing as well.
 * Review of The Hollywood Reporter & LA weekly: 4

I also wanted to let you know that I found LOADS of articles speaking of the film's impact...We can brainstorm on how to expand that section as well. Have a nice day and happy editing. Oh and a tip, U should invite User talk:Ankitbhatt, cause he's a genius. --Meryam90 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You caught me as I sneaked a peak online. Best of luck on your exams! I'm also swamped with work but have a few moments right now. First of all THANK YOU! for such a terrific clean up. You have no idea how excited I am to find someone who wants to work on this article, which I've tweaked on and off for years. When I first started working on it, there were virtually no external women's hockey links (for India) and I had to make most of them. Much of this article seemed about making links to other sources. Now to what you did - fabulous work, really, really impressive. Thank your for restoring those quotes, I just had no idea what to do about the fact that the article seemed to vanish. Missed it was all on video. I took a look at RA.One - fantastic work. Amazing actually for a GA. I am open to any and all ideas for the CDI article that will get it to FAC. I think CDI is a very important film - which tackles so many social issues in a unique way. And it is very important film re: women's sports. How many really good women's sports films are there? And how many people outside of India (or the Diaspora) know about CDI? I will take a look at your links and we'll just take it from here to see how the article develops. And we have a few other people who can help out. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked at the links. I'd like to create a section about the role the song "Chak De India" played in the Cricket world cup last year - there's been write up here and there that the song has gained importance at sports matches but I think this was the most evident. A whole section on this will help make the article more important. We could then add the cricket article you list. We need to expand the festival sections true. I'm sorry The Hollywood Reporter review is no longer online. As for the LA Weekly, it's a small free paper, not a major one like the LA Times so that is up for debate. My question is the fact the articles are on the website. FAC's spend a lot of time on the quality of sources and on copyright issues. This can hold up an FAC. The fact that these reviews appear on the official website worry me a bit.We need to ask around about how those sources will be seen. And I've seen people object to rediff articles before for FAC's more so than GAs - but sometimes rediff articles are ok. It's hard for me to tell. We need to go through though and see if we missed other reviews and we need to balance the review section so that negative comments appear too. I also contacted your friend and please pull in other friends to work on this article. This article really should be an FA and with a lot of people contributing it will get there. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some actors to the cast but couldn't find all of the character names. Put temporary refs there to help out but if you can track it all down and remove them it would be great. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite, though Meryam is very generous with her praise for me :) I glanced through the article yesterday and marshalled a few thoughts on it. I haven't done a fine-toothed analysis of it yet (such as links, references etc.) but a cursory glance does throw up a few issues.


 * For the FAR, the article's biggest issue will be lack of content. GAs are not so strict on amount of content, but FAs are required to be very detailed, expansive and all-encompassing. So much so that often, there are sub-articles required for explaining some details.


 * The production section is really inadequate, and there is surprisingly no "filming" sub-section; that is an absolute must. A post-production section is also required. Some of the "Development" sentences are actually for "Filming" section actually, so you can clear that up. I had come across an article that can be used for post-production, something about using VFX to fill up a stadium for the final match.


 * The "Cast" section should come directly after the plot, and not after the "Production" section. Similarly, the "Soundtrack" section should come within the production section.


 * The bit about the Margaret Herrick library can be removed, and instead placed in the Lead.


 * As Meryam pointed out, the Critical reception section requires a separate Indian and Overseas sub-section.


 * Coming to the numbers, writing figures in millions is now pretty much passé. Crores should be used wherever required. And a major change required is changing all "Rs" to ₹ using the Indian Rupee template. However, we at Ra.One have been consistently using the INRConvert template; it would be great if you use that throughout.


 * The impact should be expanded; its too short really, and I'm sure CDI has had more impact than just the suspension of the IHF.

However, we do face a problem: many of the problems in the article cannot be rectified easily so long after the film's release. The Ra.One article is so big and cited only because we updated the facts in real time. Five years after release, and most references would have disappeared. But still, we should try our best. If there are any other problems, I'll surely notify. I may not be able to devote full time to the article as I am currently busy with the 2012 BRICS summit, but I'll chip in as much as I can. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic mini-peer review. Thanks so much! I made the minor formatting changes you recommended (cast, soundtrack, moving the library statement, and creating subsections for the review section). I wonder if you and Meryam could work on the numbers issue since you have had experience with that. As a group, we can tackle development and expansion.


 * I am well aware of the problems you raise as I have dealt with them since I first began to develop the article in 2008. Much of it also has to do with what the media decides to cover even when the film first comes out. Turning Lage Raho Munna Bhai into a featured article a few years ago happened naturally because of the sheer amount of press write ups on the film. One point to deal with, however, is that over time the issue one can face with an article like that lies in how long the links will remain valid - LRMB could use another overhaul actually due to this issue. Taare Zameen Par initially produced a lot of press - but after it was not nominated for an Oscar, it began to fade - and was eventually overshadowed by Slumdog Millionaire. It was only after Disney released it on DVD that the press noticed it again, other users noticed it and the article began to bloom. In contrast, Chak De! India has been a more difficult article to develop. First of all, as I wrote above, when I first began working on it, virtually nothing existed on the WP with regard to women's field hockey in India. I had to begin or develop what you now see on that topic. Next, it proved a challenge to find editors to contribute to this article. Finally, even when the film came out, it was always more of a challenge to find usable press or scholarship on the film. And by now, as you pointed out, some of what did exist has vanished. However, I think with the steady involvement of a few dedicated editors, we can dig through what does exist and build an article worthy of an FAC.


 * Thanks again for the feedback - whatever time or energy you can give to the article is appreciated! -Classicfilms (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A speak peek before exams. See I am very good at finding sources (new, old whatever you'd like) but I need a copy editor (at all time), concerning the content, there is much more available than you think, whatever it is for impact, filming or Box office. I personally developed a dislike for using the NRIconvert and only refer to the Indian Rupee template, but whatever you guys decide on, I am good with it.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL :-) You've got a copy-editor in me - if you can dig up sources, make better use of the ones we have, and brainstorm ways to develop the article, I'm more than happy to copy-edit. My philosophy on that is the following - I'll do minor CE during the building of the article but it's better to do a full blown edit closer to the time of review since people can change anything you do. Glad to have so many people here to help - I think we can bring this article to FAC with concentrated effort! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

History of article
Just as an fyi for anyone interested in working on CDI: (I organize my archives by topic), I grouped together the major discussions I've had on CDI in my Archive #10. You can get a sense of some of the history here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Classicfilms/Archive_10

-Classicfilms (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I wated to ask you, can you be reached by E-mail? I want to share my "research" with you so that can gain time editing. :D and I just want to let you know that "holy Sh*t you have no idea how many articles I've found...even if the filming section will be a tough one :p--Meryam90 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all Meryam, I want to thank you for the enthusiasm and energy you are giving to this article. I've been wanting to improve it for years and am glad to find such talented editors to work on it. I don't use an email account for the Wikipedia anymore because I usually forget to check it, so it is not an efficient way to work on an article. That being said, I understand the need to have a work space- so I created one just now. Let's start to develop the article here:


 * User:Classicfilms/Drafts

Please put all ideas, links etc. anything you have in this space and I will see it as it is now on my watch list. I'm delighted you found so many articles. As for the film section, we'll just take that as it comes. We may be able to find stray quotes here and there to build it. This article will be a challenge to build but I think over time it can be done. Ok, I'll check back in tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Got good response!
Ok, so here is a great team for Chak De...! good.

One probable trivia for Khaani. I was watching Ray's Agantuk yesterday. The child in the film is named Satyoki. When Utpal Dutt asks his name, he says Satyoki. In reply Dutt asks him whether he was "Krishner shishyo" (disciple of Krishna). In Kahaani Satyoki was erroneously mentioned as Arjun's charioteer.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know! It's very exciting! We are all volunteers, all have busy lives and yet I think if everyone here can contribute whatever they feel comfortable giving, I think that the CDI article can move forward (somehow I'm feeling a bit like Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year - not editing the article but the film itself!). As for "Khaani" - great observation. I am personally a little frustrated by the shallowness of some of the press releases on the film - particularly when it comes to the issue of women. I have mixed feelings about the term "female-centric" which is being spun, but more so on the focus entirely on motherhood ( a very important issue no doubt) to the exclusion of other very important issues -- though of course that means spoiling the ending. It might be interesting if we could also find info on other interpretations of the Durga story as I thought this was one of the best I've seen (in terms of a figurative rather than literal approach). I am just holding my breath waiting for better articles to come out -- LRMB was better in this respect, nearly from day one there were write ups on Gandhi which is what made that article fun to work on. OK, RL calls, more tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol! The analogy with Rocket Singh is funny. And thank you poking fun with "Khaani" :)
 * I have not really come across good interpretation of the Durga motif yet. And have not been able to read the Bengali newspapers regularly, so may have missed something.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the sense I get which is why I am holding off for now - and keeping my fingers crossed that eventually articles which follow some of the thematic points I outlined will be released. Too bad actually... -Classicfilms (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

CDI Team
Hello All, I've compiled a list of people with tasks that match their interests. Tweak if you want to and feel free to remove your name as well. When it is firm, I'll post it on the CDI talk page. Ok, signing off for a day or two. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, it looks like we're all squared away. I'll put something together for the talk pages over the weekend. Cheers all -Classicfilms (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Research, Development, Writing/Expansion
 * Meryam90
 * Classicfilms


 * Analysis/Peer Review of Article - contributing if/when possible
 * Ankit
 * Suits me fine. Wow, this is the first time I'm seeing any editor as dedicated as you :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific, glad to have your expertise on the article... and thank you for the kind words. I've learned this from other really good editors over the years... -Classicfilms (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dwaipayan


 * Polish - "reverting vandalism, fixing wikilinks, grammar, spelling"
 * Msrag
 * With the expertise of all the above editors, I feel I would be doing little, but would still try my best.Thumbs up icon.png --Msrag (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is quite a lot - very important work that many editors overlook. Thanks for helping out! -Classicfilms (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BollyJeff
 * Might as well move me to the polish category too. BollyJeff  ||  talk  12:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You got it :-). Thanks so much! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Classicfilms

Featured article criteria
Sorry, forgot to add this link - just a reminder of what our goal is:
 * Featured article criteria

-Classicfilms (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chak De! India updates
This page is filled with so much good WP energy that even I'm getting lost - so I'm starting a new section here. Meryam and I have started a brainstorming page to pre-draft URLs and ideas and I put a small write up on the talk page (which contains a link to the brainstorming page. At this point, it's probably better to start contributing ideas either to the brainstorming page or to the CDI talk page. I have to go off wiki for a few days but I'll be back next week to see where we are and what we need to do next. Thanks to you all for your enthusiasm

- Classicfilms (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Classicfilms/Drafts
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chak_De!_India
 * Please note that I archived our recent discussions - but I pasted all of the suggestions you gave to our brainstorming page above. If I missed any, feel free to add. See you all next week! -Classicfilms (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

When will you be back?
The article Chak De! India seems to have gone off into hibernation. I'm sorry I can't help more with it, but I'm cooped up with pushing Ra.One to the FAC, so I was hoping that your return would rejuvenate things a bit. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered that my contributions seem to be pushing the article along :-) But I really believe in you all and feel that what makes the Wikipedia so terrific is the ability of many people to collaborate on one topic. I simply became swamped in RL and may be away for another month or so but I will be back in the future. In the meantime, perhaps you all could go through the sources that I put on my draft page or other sources you find to start collecting more information - which seems to be the biggest gap in the article. I think that there is a lot there once all of the articles are explored and we start indexing what is available. Good luck with pushing Ra.One to FAC!! That's great news, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you all. In the meantime, I hope that as a group we can all continue to develop CDI which is really not just one of SRK's best films, but an important one for many reasons. I'll be back soon... -Classicfilms (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do, and thanks for the luck :) Hope you become unswamped in RL soon. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too!! Thanks for looking into it and hope RA FAC is going well. - Classicfilms (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Update - it's going to be another month or so, probably closer to summer -- in the meantime, India women's national field hockey team could use a clean up as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry all, I'm still away for awhile until a "Real Life" project is done. That doesn't mean others can't work on CDI - as even here, I couldn't possibly - alone - sift through all of the existing URLs in search of material - it should be a collaborative effort - I will be back in the future, just not now. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar

 * Thank you!!! -Classicfilms (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Chak De! India URLs
Ok, well basically, my way of working is that I gather as much useful articles as I can in a separate file in my bookmarks and then I get back to them to create a section in my Sandbox...but I have seen how Kahaani has just exploded and now realize how a collaboration can make an article grow so fast. So, I am gonna start pasting links here so that U can work on them on ur own time as you wish. Most of them are abt the origin/developement, Box office or Filming...There are even links that will help in the title section--Meryam90 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is FANTASTIC!!! Wow, I was blown away by the number of links you have listed here! A couple of things. I have looked at this article for so long I can no longer see it clearly - so I'm going to ask if you can get us going by perhaps reorganizing these URLs by topic - and/or writing a few words of description? What we need to do is rethink how to structure the article, what sections to add, and how to best use these URLs - and the existing ones in the article which many have more uses than we realize. I have pasted below URLs from the Further Reading section - I put these in the section because I was not sure what to do with them and they are not used in the article yet - apologies if you listed some below.

Also - I have to be off-wiki for the next few days so I'm hoping you can use that time to think through some beginning points and maybe get started on the article. Collaboration is the key to the Wikipedia and you will see once I come back and take a look at what you have done how useful it is to have many sets of eyes developing one project. I will also leave a note on the article talk page about this team, invite others to join, and paste a link to this workspace here. Very exciting beginning, great job!

So feel free to reorganize at will - I divided by our names for clarity but you can reorganize headers by subject - this is a draft space so work freely here. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Classicfilms URLs
These are URLs for development that sit in the Further Reading section - I also think we can better use existing URLs in the article.

Chak De India" scores with women's hockey, patriotism mix (Overview/reception)
 * http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/14/idINIndia-28973220070814?sp=true

Singing The Praises Of Bollywood Films (this is an audio National Public Radio report on Bollywood which contains a segment on CDI)
 * http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101151401

India answers a new call (Impact of song and use of title)
 * http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK17Df03.html

“Chak De India” is the story of the new Indian woman – not glamorous, not long-suffering, not vigilante, just fighting for her dreams.(Overview/women)
 * http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fline/fl2420/stories/20071019507109000.htm

The stuff of fairy tales: "Chak De India” is a war cry that we all needed to hear at this juncture. And it matters little that it had to come from Bollywood. (Overivew/Women)
 * http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007090250080400.htm&date=2007/09/02/&prd=mag&

Identity proof (Director Kabir Khan discusses the use of his name - which was intentional in the script- in a larger discussion of Muslim Sterotype in films)
 * http://www.indianexpress.com/news/identity-proof/553010/0

These URLs are used in the article but only as a plot reference and also discuss religion and representation in CDI and film in general -
 * http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/12/28/idINIndia-31155920071228?sp=true
 * http://in.rediff.com/movies/2007/aug/13sai.htm

Meryam URLs
http://yashrajfilms.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=7dc60abe-83e9-4e39-8e0b-8b4189cbf03a

http://www.yashrajfilms.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=823fdaa8-3d2b-4e1f-a024-7252092e7ea4

http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/india-finally-gets-its-first-complete-sports-film/3092/

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080210/jsp/7days/story_8884107.jsp

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070810/asp/calcutta/story_8172394.asp

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070808/asp/entertainment/story_8166593.asp

http://www.sify.com/movies/shimit-s-shah-rukh-starrer-shelved-news-bollywood-kkfvoNacbgd.html

http://www.sify.com/movies/get-set-ready-to-play-with-shahrukh-news-bollywood-kkfvo6jeffe.html

http://www.sify.com/movies/chak-de-girls-kicked-my-butt-shah-rukh-khan-news-bollywood-kkfuKlegbfb.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/14/us-india-bollywood-hockey-idUSDEL27120720070814

http://www.rediff.com/movies/chakde07.html

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2007/aug/30chak.htm

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?235484

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world/asia/15iht-letter15.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/previews/Chak-De-India-spotlight-on-hockey/Article1-241236.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/mirchmasala/Chak-De-India-takes-SRK-down-memory-lane/Article1-240804.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/dresscircle/Shah-Rukh-should-be-hockey-ambassador-Suniel/Article1-244060.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/cricketnews/Indian-cricketers-watch-Chak-De-India/Article1-245382.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/cinema/Chak-De-about-sexism-in-India-NYT/Article1-241916.aspx

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200711200321.htm

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200709111964.htm

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200708310339.htm

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200708131621.htm

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200708101717.htm

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/08/26/stories/2007082650060300.htm

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/no-romance-for-shah-rukh-in-this-one/209082/0

http://www.filmapia.com/published/movies/c/chak-de-india

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_chak-de-india-in-australia_1055597

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_rashid-latif-believes-chak-de-india-inspired-dhoni-to-win_1123344

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C08%5C15%5Cstory_15-8-2007_pg9_9

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=294245

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=first_week_records

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/news/type/view/id/1220683

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/news/type/view/id/1193141

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur-times/Chak-De-India-SRK-style/articleshow/2165490.cms

http://oldbh.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2010/02/13/5961/index.html

http://oldbh.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2008/03/08/3652/

http://movies.ndtv.com/gallerydetails.aspx?id=4489&category=Movies&picno=6&section=Bollywood&ShowID=0#BD

http://inhome.rediff.com/movies/2007/aug/14chak.htm

http://inhome.rediff.com/movies/2007/aug/07shimit.htm

http://inhome.rediff.com/movies/2005/sep/29amin.htm

http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/12/28/idINIndia-31155920071228

http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/11/20/idINIndia-30599420071120

http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/14/idINIndia-28973420070814

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pratibha-pats-srk-on-the-back-for-chak-de-india/47562-8.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-fluff-chak-de-india-is-all-about-the-real-game/46339-8-17.html

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=chakdeindia.htm

http://www.sify.com/movies/is-sports-bollywood-s-newest-success-formula-news-bollywood-kkfuv6fgeef.html

List of suggestions moved from my talk page
The Production section seems to be the most deficient. Production may not need sub-headings.


 * Release section:
 * Asian Film Festival in Jeddah to open with Chak De India 1
 * “Chak De India” sets out to conquer Latin America2
 * Indian (Cricket)team watches Chak De! India (this can also be expanded & added to impact section) 3

(which should be split into 2 sub-sections (India & Overseas)) and then we can add a sammury which hilights the aspects which were acclaimed and other remarks made by various critics. Since the actual links of these reviews are missin, quoting from the official website of the film is also variable.
 * Critical reception section

Oh and Raja Sen's review from rediff is missing as well.
 * Review of The Hollywood Reporter & LA weekly: 4


 * For the FAR, the article's biggest issue will be lack of content. GAs are not so strict on amount of content, but FAs are required to be very detailed, expansive and all-encompassing. So much so that often, there are sub-articles required for explaining some details.


 * The production section is really inadequate, and there is surprisingly no "filming" sub-section; that is an absolute must. A post-production section is also required. Some of the "Development" sentences are actually for "Filming" section actually, so you can clear that up. I had come across an article that can be used for post-production, something about using VFX to fill up a stadium for the final match.


 * The "Cast" section should come directly after the plot, and not after the "Production" section. Similarly, the "Soundtrack" section should come within the production section.


 * The bit about the Margaret Herrick library can be removed, and instead placed in the Lead.


 * As Meryam pointed out, the Critical reception section requires a separate Indian and Overseas sub-section.


 * Coming to the numbers, writing figures in millions is now pretty much passé. Crores should be used wherever required. And a major change required is changing all "Rs" to ₹ using the Indian Rupee template. However, we at Ra.One have been consistently using the INRConvert template; it would be great if you use that throughout.


 * The impact should be expanded; its too short really, and I'm sure CDI has had more impact than just the suspension of the IHF.

A barnstar for you!
P.S. Do you think it's worth creating an article for John Robbins' 1992 film Diet for a New America and adding it to the veg*n template? If so, I can create one when my computer is back from repair (I am writing this message from a hand-held device). Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nirvana2013! I really appreciate the positive feedback. And thank you for the Barnstar as well... As for Robbins - his book is quite important and thus easy to verify through reliable sources. I am not familiar with the film based upon the book but if you can find a number of secondary sources that could at least make a stub then yes I would think it is worth it. In general, whenever you are thinking of making a new article for the WP, look around first and see what kind of sources you can find either online or hard copy. What kind of information do they provide? Look at similar film articles to get an idea of what you could develop in an article of your own. Good luck! -Classicfilms (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Miss America

 * Thanks!! -Classicfilms (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miss America, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vanessa Williams and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibility of restoring Semi-Protection
Hello, No sooner was semi-protection lifted from this article: 2015 Chapel Hill shooting than an edit war broke out with an anon IP. I would suggest restoring it. Thank you. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 has blocked the one IP editor causing trouble for edit warring. I don't see a pressing need to re-protect. For future requests please use WP:AIV, WP:AN3, or WP:RFPP as appropriate rather than messaging a single admin, as the noticeboards are watched and attended to regularly whereas I might not be (and indeed was not) online. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do and thanks for advice. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nina Davuluri
Thank you so much Miniapolis! You did a wonderful job on the article. Thank you as well for the useful tip re: the Further reading section. I will work to better integrate the material into the article and I will let you know when I have done that. Enjoy the rest of your day.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very glad to help; it was an enjoyable copyedit (not all are :-)), and assuming your sourcing is good it looks ready for GA. Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How nice of you thanks. Actually, you have inspired me to tighten it up a bit. I took your advice and for now just deleted the repeats in the EL section. I am going to think a bit about how I can integrate the rest of the articles and I should really check the refs to make certain all are working and if I really need all that are there. I've been building this article here and there over two years and thus it could be a little more cohesive. Your c/e is terrific, I'll make certain not to interfere with your changes - just want to make it a bit better -- and thanks, glad you enjoyed the read. I don't normally edit pageant articles but I think this biography is very interesting and worthy of a GA and thus have worked hard on it and related articles for awhile. Anyway, I'm also swamped in real life so I'll have to go about this at probably a snail's pace. When I'm done, I will drop a line.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't hesitate to change anything I've done. The only thing that's annoying is when an editor undoes hours of work with a single keystroke but besides that, nothing I do is carved in stone. Although the GA bar is lower than that for FA, in case you get a "fussy" reviewer it helps if the article is as good as possible. Thanks for keeping me in the loop and all the best,  Mini  apolis  00:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Chak De! India

 * Responded on your talk page-Classicfilms (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Chak De India
Thank you Miniapolis for starting the copyedit on Chak De India. I needed to give myself a bit of a break before moving Nina Davuluri up to a GA (I tend to do this with articles to help give myself a fresh point of view). I had brought Chak De to GA a few years ago. I recently looked over it in consideration for a future FAC and realized that it needed a complete overhaul. I cleaned it up quite a bit and requested the copy edit simply to bring it back to GA level. I realize that in the future I will have to expand it great for an FA. After your copy edit, I will probably let it sit for awhile and go back to the Nina Davuluri article - again to give myself a fresh point of view. You are a fabulous editor -- any thoughts or comments that you have will be well appreciated. And I will work in both cases not to override your edits - simply to expand upon them to improve the articles. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to help; it's a very good, very interesting article. I should be finished tomorrow or Saturday, and it helps that there's no rush. Please feel free to tweak any edits; Bollywood isn't my area of expertise, and I'm trying not to introduce errors. FWIW, it's getting an FAC copyedit for when the time comes :-). Good luck with Nina and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks and please take your time. When it comes to GA or FAC upgrades, I go about it very, very slowly as I like to take my time to think. And thanks for the FAC upgrade now - I just felt that I wanted another set of eyes to look at it before I took that step. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That was fast - thank you for the copy edit, looks great! I have one question about the use of Template:TOC limit. I suspect that you did it to deal with photo alignment. I suspect, however, that this will not sit as well with film editors. Would you mind if I removed the template? -Classicfilms (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the film editors would object to TOC limit, since it only affects the display of the table of contents, but feel free to do what you want. In accordance with MOS:ACCESS, I changed the bolded "headers" in the critical-reception section to level-4 headers and added the TOC limit so they would continue not displaying in the table of contents; FAC reviewers will probably notice non-MOS header formatting. All the best,  Mini  apolis  19:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...I see. You are quite right about the CR section headers - so I tweaked them a bit and removed the template. Take a look and tell me what you think. It really is a great series of edits otherwise - thank you so much for the time.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possible solution might be reformatting the sections to match something like this - Slumdog Millionaire.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the Manual of Style accessibility section I linked to above: "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use TOC limit instead". That's what I did; if you don't mind those sections displaying in the TOC, use the level-4 section markup. Why don't the "film editors" like that template? It makes no sense to me. All the best,  Mini  apolis  19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the edit conflict - didn't realize you were trying to post. You are right about the MOS - I just deleted the headings and at some point, I'll rework the reviews. I am guessing they won't because normally the lead comes first and film editors (at least when I have worked on Bollywood articles) tend to be somewhat particular- I don't think I've seen a Bollywood article that has the contents that way. I could reinstate the TOC if you really think it helps - I'm thinking the better thing to do is to simply get rid of the headers and rewrite the review sections since it is somewhat long. Perhaps that will help fix the issues. Let me know if you think this isn't a good idea. Thanks again for all of your feedback, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

SM has no level-4 headings; it has separate level-2 sections for box office and critical reception, so its layout differs from CDI. If you're more comfortable with that layout change it, but SM is B-class and CDI is a GA so I think your layout is okay.  Mini  apolis  20:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are really good at this - I am still learning to think about how to see the grades of articles. Actually there really isn't a need to have the divisions and the quotes were too long. So I went ahead and trimmed the sections like so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chak_De!_India#Critical_response
 * That pretty much solves the problem. Thank you again for the help -- when I finally do do the upgrade for FA, I will leave a note and let you know, you have a lot of insight into formatting issues that even after 10 years I am still trying to figure out. I want to do everything possible to make it an easy FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If your sourcing is good (and it seems to be), you shouldn't have a problem. Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  20:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Same to you, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And just as a P.S. - I just reread this and realized that I mis-read your edit as stating that there was a problem with level-4 headers - which is why I replaced them with bold (which I now realize is what you replaced) - so it looked like a revert. That is completely my fault, apologies - I read your post too quickly, I should have read it more carefully. I was actually pretty confused, at that moment. Anyway, I like the product, and appreciate the help. Sorry for the mixup -Classicfilms (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I've been copyediting articles here for a few years, and am always learning new things; that's what keeps it fun. All the best,  Mini  apolis  21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nina Davuluri
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nina Davuluri you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thank you! -Classicfilms (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nina Davuluri
The article Nina Davuluri you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nina Davuluri for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!-Classicfilms (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * -Thank you! I appreciate the barnstar! Thanks for your help improving the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure working with you!  Numerounovedant   Talk  18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Anon IP adding unsourced material to WP:BLP
(Note: discussion originally appeared here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Anon_IP_adding_unsourced_material_to_WP:BLP)

Hello User:Moonriddengirl, I have been editing this WP:BLP for awhile: Lisa Brennan-Jobs
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

An anon IP is adding unsourced information to this article stating that the subject is married. It may very well be true, but I cannot find WP:RS that confirms the topic. I did one mass revert with a note in the edit history about using sources, but the IP user restored all of the edits again without references. I do not want to get into an edit war over this issue. At the same time, this is a well-known person and thus I have been trying to keep her biography accurate. Either we need to find sources that confirm this information, or somehow convey to the IP user that the WP can't add information without a source. I am not calling for a block per se but for the intervention of an admin (I've seen your work before and am a fan). Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Classicfilms. :) Thanks for your kind words. :D The best thing to do always is leave a note of explanation on the talk page of the user, if the IP is the same especially, as many new and unregistered users don't know about edit summaries and sometimes genuinely do not understand why their changes don't "stick." (We get emails asking us that question a lot.) If they persist after the note on the talk page and their edits are a BLP problem, like this one, you can keep removing them and then list the page at WP:RPP or request a block at WP:AIV. (While WP:EW prohibits doing too many reverts in a 24-hour period, of course, it does allow exception for protecting BLPs, if the issue is clear, like this one.) Or stop by here. :) I'm not on as much as I'd like to be, though, so I'm not as quick as those forums usually. It's also a good idea to just check and see what else they're up to. They've done something similar at another BLP, but in this case removing sourced information and breaking a reflink. I've fixed that, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Moonriddengirl - and you see why I am a fan. You are always so helpful! I really appreciate this detailed explanation and I've made a copy for my archives. I have never really understood the process very well and you have explained it so clearly. I also saw your response on both this page and the other page. So I will do the same in the future. One final question - the comment that you left on the user's page - it looks like a template to me. Where would I find templates like this one? Thanks again for your help and for clarifying that 3RR doesn't apply for clear cases of vandalism like this on a BLP. Also just as an fyi, you may want to keep Lisa Brennan-Jobs on your watch list since the film about her father is coming out in October and I suspect there will be cases of vandalism cropping up over the next few months. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Classicfilms, may I suggest enabling Twinkle (go to your Preferences page and then the Gadgets tab)? Once the preference is saved, and you go to a user's talk page, you'll see a new warn tab at the top of your screen. Clicking it will allow you to choose all kinds of warnings and notes and the appropriate level. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. --Neil N  talk to me 15:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could come up with a better word than this - but ... wow! The Gadgets tab is quite nifty :-) I enabled Twinkle as well as a few other options. Yes, I see what to do now and thank you so much for the tip! I will copy and paste this full thread to my archive. I will certainly contact you if I have any further questions. Thanks Neil! -Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Twinkle rocks. :) Thanks, User:NeilN. Classicfilms, with Twinkle you may never need to know this, but another handy tip: most templates have hidden text identifying them. So if you see something that looks like a template, just click edit and look to see if it does. In this case, the one I used identifies itself as . Template:uw-biog1. Voila. On the rare occasion that the content doesn't identify the template, you can try through searching templates. I'm not sure if you're familiar with how to do an advanced search, but it's all explained at Help:Searching. I use the advanced searching parameters regularly to help me find notes left on user talk pages. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Most excellent, I like the advanced search option. Now I've learned two new things... Thanks to you both Moonriddengirl and Neil, this has been an exceptionally beneficial class. I will add this post to my archived version. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve Jobs dab page
Erik - this dab page might be of interest to you: -Classicfilms (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Jobs (disambiguation)


 * Hello! That would be a possible solution; you can mention it at WT:FILM. I am still mulling over how much disambiguation (in general, that is) would be warranted. There are not exactly a lot of film-clusters out there, much less those that share very similar titles. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the dab page to the discussion, though as I stated, I'm not entirely certain it is the best solution. I don't think that the feature films are confused with the documentaries, but there does seem to be confusion at times between the 2013 feature film Jobs and the upcoming Danny Boyle film. Maybe it would help to add dates to the titles - ie: Jobs (2013 film).
 * I also wanted to alert you to this note I left on the Steve Jobs (film) talk page:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Jobs_(film)
 * I am referring to this section:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(film)#Steve_Wozniak
 * I think that the entire section now needs to be rewritten since the topic is borderline WP:BLP - but I'm not entirely certain how it should be re-configured. It's also a bit of a big job - just wanted to put it on your radar if you have ideas or know someone who might have suggestions about how these two articles can be integrated into the section.-Classicfilms (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Erik - back to the dab question - I like the hatnotes that you placed on all of the pages. I'm now wondering if we should actually change the titles of these two articles: Jobs (film) ->Jobs (2013 film) and Steve Jobs (film) -> Steve Jobs (2015 film). I know these discussions tend to generate a lot of debate which is why I wanted to start on your talk page - do you think it is worth raising? -Classicfilms (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was sort of thinking before. But would Steve Jobs (2015 film) be a good enough disambiguation from the documentary film also mainly title Steve Jobs from the same year? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...valid point. The more I think about it, though, your hatnotes indicate that down the road, there will be confusion among the films. The dab page also helps, but it is only listed on the Steve Jobs bio page and thus not everyone will see it. So, perhaps I can propose that we change ALL of the film titles like so:


 * Jobs (film) ->Jobs (2013 film)
 * Steve Jobs (film) -> Steve Jobs (2015 film)
 * Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview -> Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview (2012 documentary film)
 * Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine -> Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine (2015 documentary film)


 * The logic would thus be twofold - a) My concern that people confuse the 2013 Jobs film with the 2015 Steve Jobs film and b) your point that people may confuse the two 2015 films, one a documentary and one a feature film. If we thus make it routine that any film with the name "Steve Jobs" in it includes the date in the title, that will both standardize the article titles and essentially dissipate confusion. What do you think? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And just to add to the fun, check out the titles that don't yet have articles:

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Jobs: Billion Dollar Hippie (2011 doc)
 * Steve Jobs: One Last Thing (2011 doc)
 * Fun indeed! I suspect that other editors would be reluctant to engage in so much disambiguation. Thinking about it, what about a set index article? They're all films with same or similar main titles and about the same subject. Other set index articles for films can be seen here: Category:Set indices on films. (Although something like Inferno (film) should not be one, being a disambiguation page instead.) If we do this, we can just link to the set index article in each hatnote, simplifying explanations and giving readers access to the universe of Steve Jobs films. How about it? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect! This is something new to me - a cross between a dab page and a list, it's excellent. And I'm glad to know something like this exists as well. Since you are more familiar with how to standardize an index like this - do you want to draw up a draft in your sandbox and I can take a look (by the way when I suggest things, it doesn't mean right now - we all have lives - just sometime). Thanks for helping out with these articles Erik, there is so so so much on this topic that an editor can feel overwhelmed. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not done a set index article before, but I learned about them a few years ago. If I have time today, I can put a simple one together. If not, sometime this weekend, probably Sunday. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sunday works for me - once you have the template up, I can also begin to add to it. I just want to make certain it is right since we already have:

and I am guessing it would replace the hatnotes? Or perhaps the hatnotes could be rewritten to contextualize it? I do think it is worth the effort, it is just a matter of figuring out how all the pieces fit together. Thanks Erik! You have throughout the years always been helpful. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Jobs (disambiguation)
 * List of artistic depictions of Steve Jobs
 * The set index article would be a subset of List of artistic depictions of Steve Jobs, just that they share the same/similar main title. We can add a "See also" section to the set index article to guide readers to look up other articles about Steve Jobs that pretty much have all the names. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan...-Classicfilms (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think the best set index article title has to be Steve Jobs (film) since the majority of the films have "Steve Jobs" as the main title. Do you think that would work? We will have to move the current article to Steve Jobs (2015 film) after all, I think. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Erik! Sounds like a terrific idea. Go for it - set up a draft and I'll take a look. Quite busy in RL so signing off for tonight - will check back in tomorrow or the next. So no rush on your part. If we move the Steve Jobs film title, perhaps its worth it to see if other films need to be moved. I'm not attached to a particular title for any article - we simply need to figure out how to distinguish the films from one another. See you tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrific job Eric! Thanks for doing all of the leg-work. Not sure about this one -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artistic_depictions_of_Steve_Jobs
 * meaning that I added a see also on the top. If that is not correct, go ahead and fix it. Great work! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree with your re-shuffling, it actually lines up everything better. As for that list article, I'm not crazy about it in general. "Artistic" seems a bit unwarranted considering that it has biographies and documentaries listed in it. Probably should be called list of works about Steve Jobs or something. I don't know if a hatnote is needed there? The films at Steve Jobs (film) is a subset of the films there, so I don't think it has to be a two-way street. Do you think otherwise? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrific, good feedback. I forgot to change the link to the 2015 Steve Jobs film - which I just did. And I removed the hatnote. As for the title of the article, I don't care. After many years of working on film articles, I have learned two things: a. Editors like to add every little bit of media/text related to the primary subject and b. lists don't work with articles - therefore a list has to be made. Over the years, I've seen lists called different things. The current title is one that became popular for these kinds of lists a few years ago. But I am open to change. Here are some other possibilities:


 * Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc
 * List of artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi
 * Personally, I think we need to standardize titles for these kinds of lists (I'm sure there are others, but these are the two I know about). The word "artistic" itself is flexible - a documentary can be a work of art depending upon form. I do agree about histories and biographies. So the real question becomes, how do we title these articles, and does it matter if there is variation in title? That being said, move it to any title that you want and make any changes that you want. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also just re-edited this page - Steve Jobs (disambiguation) - so that we are not repeating information. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

More on Steve Jobs
Hi Erik, I left the following note on a DAB admin page and mentioned you - I tried to use wikimarkup to alert you, but for some reason it didn't work. What is the short cut for alerting another editor? Here is the URL for the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BD2412#Steve_Jobs_DAB_question Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! You can use the ul template and write it like this: . Will check in to see what the editor says unless I am pinged. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Will keep you posted. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 * ✅-Classicfilms (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kyley Statham


The article Kyley Statham has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * subject does not meet notability guidelines WP:ENT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kingstoken (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Awam Amkpa


A tag has been placed on Awam Amkpa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Ammarpad (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of colleges and universities which have signed the Presidents Letter


The article List of colleges and universities which have signed the Presidents Letter has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Seems non-notable on the face of it; if someone can add more sources, I may change my stance."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lourdes 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Laura Kamrath for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laura Kamrath is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Laura Kamrath until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

ITNC nom

 * In_the_news/Candidates

I have nominated this for ITN RD with your name. Please help to improve the sourcing specially in the filmography section. It also needs expansion at least 2KB of readable text. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! It may be a bit early yet, there isn't much available with regard to WP:RS, but good idea, let's see what we can do. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not early. With WP:ITNC it is now or never. Since he died recently we have the chance to nominate him. I took that chance already. Now If we can expand it to start class or C then it will get support votes and get promoted to the main page. If we fail to do it in time (i.e. within 1-2 days) then it may get stale, as more newer entries will be lined up for promotion. I have already fixed the filmography sourcing, since I posted this comment here. Lets look for whatever is available and expand using that. I have listed a few links on the talk page to expand. Take a look. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm out today but I'll see if I can dig up some WP:RS tonight. If you have ideas for how to develop the article, perhaps outline on the talk page. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The only problem stopping it from getting promoted is the size of the article. If we can add content that covers his life and career in a reasonable way, that will increase the size and hence it will pass. This is not a GA review so we dont need to aim for that, lets aim for a C class article. We should first add content from the links on the talk page, once that is exhausted, we can go on looking for more.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was literally writing my comment when this was posted, so I'll try again. I'm not opposed to people trying to expand the article and there are a few other editors working on the article you might want to approach. I just did a few searches and cannot find much online besides news of his death. Virtually all articles summarize the talking points that are already in the article. I personally don't see much to add, but perhaps other editors will so I would keep trying with other editors - because I don't see anything else I can add. I'm signing off for tonight and won't be back on the Wikipedia until probably Monday or Tuesday, so again, you may want to ask someone else. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not given up my hopes on this, and have been expanding it based on whatever I can find. If possible, please join me there. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did a brief c/e on the article. I think you are doing a better job than I could do of expanding the article. Sorry, I've been a bit swamped in RL - I won't be back on the WP until next week. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did one more search today, before signing off for the week, and did find a useful article from 2014. I will add it and then check in again after the 7th.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Rob Garrison
Stephen 00:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hatnotes
Please learn when to and when not use hatnotes, such as erroneously placed one. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:4637:9200:25EF:D7D6:360F:F474 (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I did read WP:HAT, but it is fine not to have it. Thanks for pointing it out. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Bad (2007 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bad (2007 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bad (2007 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

KKII
Just a heads up that an IP removed an entire section you added to The Karate Kid Part II about the Cobra Kai tie-in, and after taking a closer look, I have to agree for the most part. Perhaps there can be a short 2 or 3 sentence summary that links to the relevant Cobra Kai article, but an in-depth recap should really be in the episode or series article. Having all that in the film article verges on WP:UNDUE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not certain I agree - but I'm too busy at the moment to spend time rethinking that section. I don't think it can be reduced to a few sentences. However, I appreciate the heads up - it isn't worth getting into an edit war over. Have a great week -Classicfilms (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but if you decide to revisit at some point, I suggest beginning a discussion on the article's talk page – a path forward that usually helps editors avoid edit wars. You can also ask from a broader perspective at WT:FILM to get some feedback/opinions from uninvolved editors. Generally, a film article should be focused on covering the most significant aspects (plot, cast, production, critical response, awards, etc), but its tie-ins with other media appearances can certainly be mentioned too, albeit to a lesser degree (example: 90-95% of the article covers the film specifically, while 5-10% covers cultural influence and pop culture references). What was in there before was more like 60/40 or 50/50, too heavily weighted in the wrong direction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback - at this point, I'm going to bow out - your points are logical and I am familiar with these kinds of discussions. However, they take quite a bit of time that I just don't have at the moment. I do think there is probably a way to create a section that indicates that the narrative of KKII shifted due to these changes (particularly Ali's story which seems to have been dropped from the article altogether). I appreciate your interest in having a debate about this - but for now, I'm going to let it go. Thanks for checking in!-Classicfilms (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Winkler
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry Winkler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Let me respond to the comment you made on the article talk page.-Classicfilms (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Henry Winkler GA review
Classicfilms, I've just put in the request for a second opinion. It may take some days, or even weeks, to attract a new reviewer.

I did notice that Aza24 added a comment about the article's intro yesterday. When you're replying to it, you might want to ask them whether they would be interested in finishing the review. They might not be, but it can't hurt to ask. Best of luck, and I hope someone steps up soon as a reviewer! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for setting up the second opinion for the Henry Winkler GA review, I really appreciate it. And thanks for the heads up about the comment from Aza24, which I hadn't seen until now. I did answer it and followed up with your suggestion. Yes, it may take awhile, but I think moving to a second opinion was a good idea. Thanks again! -Classicfilms (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Aza24 would like to take over the review, but is wondering how to proceed. Discussion is on the GA Review page.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've replied there, Classicfilms. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Winkler
The article Henry Winkler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Henry Winkler for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Winkler
The article Henry Winkler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henry Winkler for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Martha Mason for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martha Mason, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Martha Mason until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Victory (2009 film)/1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Victory (2009 film)/1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 17:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The Home and the World
Have you watched the film Ghare Baire (film) (The Home and the World) by Satyajit Ray? Dwaipayan (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * hmmmm...I did, though it was some time ago. Am a fan of all of his films generally... (and of course Tagore).-Classicfilms (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Classicfilms!


Happy New Year! Classicfilms, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Article
Can you create an article on Vanessa Rubio? Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. DareshMohan (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi DareshMohan - I'm also a Cobra Kai fan! Let me look around over the weekend and see what I can come up with.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @DareshMohan - I created the stub - Vanessa Rubio - have fun developing it! -Classicfilms (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a lot! I requested the undeletion of Joe Seo, hope you can help with the article. DareshMohan (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @DareshMohan - Sure, I added this podcast interview in the External Links for Joe Seo which should give you biographical information on Seo to develop the article. Have fun!-Classicfilms (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Gianni DeCenzo
Can you help make an article for this guy (Coop & Cami Ask the World)? DareshMohan (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I'm going to have to decline on this one, as I don't know much about the subject. Thanks for reaching out!-Classicfilms (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? He played Demetri (main role for three seasons) on Cobra Kai. Last of the main cast without an article. DareshMohan (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase - I'm not familiar enough with the additional work of the subject to be up for the task of creating an article. Perhaps another editor who has worked on Cobra Kai articles would be willing to take it on? Or perhaps you would be interested in creating it :-) Cheers -Classicfilms (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I wanted to ask if he was notable before creating an article. Sources:, , , , . He appeared in six episodes of Coop & Cami Ask the World and four episodes of 100 Things to Do Before High School. DareshMohan (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...it's a tough call. If you create a stub I can take a look - but I can't guarantee it won't face a speedy deletion given how little there is on the subject. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please help improve Draft:Gianni DeCenzo. DareshMohan (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see - well, it looks like the stub was declined by three different editors for the reasons I suggested above. My suggestion would be to look around and see if you can find better WP:RS that match the suggestions that these editors made. It may be that there just isn't enough yet on the subject to create an article.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I am Akiko Aoyagi.
Firstly I was very impressed your hard work creating/editing my page (Akiko Aoyagi). I found a few minor mistakes and if possible I would like to correct them. Only I could have known these very personal information. I edited only 4 sections of the current page. Below is my edited sections:

Aoyagi is recently retired and no longer actively working as a professional illustrator and graphic designer in California.

After graduation, she worked as a fashion designer and illustrator in Tokyo, where she “was in the habit of lightening her hair with hair-dye and wearing tie-dye maxi-skirts."

She also thought of becoming a Catholic nun even though she was not Catholic.

Shurtleff and Aoyagi’s sister were both students at the International Christian University (ICU) in Tokyo. Shurtleff was taking some intensive Japanese language classes when Aoyagi’s sister was a freshman at ICU.

Hello Ms. Aoyagi, Thank you for reaching out regarding the article: Akiko Aoyagi. I appreciate your feedback. As a volunteer Wikipedian, I am bound by the styleguides which dicate how articles are written. A central factor in this process lies in this page which talks about reliable sources: Reliable sources. That means that I or any other Wikipedian can only make additions based on hard copy or digital RS. This approach reflects the point that we have to be able to verify all information added to the Wikipedia: Verifiability. In creating the article, I used the sources listed in the references section: Jonathan Kauffman's "Hippie food" and Rynn Berry's "Famous Vegetarians" as well as "Mother Earth"'s "Plowboy interview" and Lorna Sass's NYT article. I also took a little information from the SoyInfo Center.

Regarding the edit suggestions: -I removed the sentence from the SoyInfo Center website which listed occupation. If that site is updated, then current retirement information can be added.
 * a. "Aoyagi is recently retired and no longer actively working as a professional illustrator and graphic designer in California."

-This quote was taken from "Kauffman's "Hippie Food." I can't change the quote, but I shortened the sentence
 * b. "After graduation, she worked as a fashion designer and illustrator in Tokyo, where she “was in the habit of lightening her hair with hair-dye and wearing tie-dye maxi-skirts."

-In order to add anything to the Wikipedia, it has to appear in a published source and I don't have a source that adds this information. It is an interesting part of your biography - I just am not in a position to add it unless you give an interview that publishes the information.
 * c. "She also thought of becoming a Catholic nun even though she was not Catholic."

- Unfortunately none of the published sources listed the exact name of this university, so I can't add it. Again, this is not challenging whether or not it is true, but rather, whether it can be verified in a source.
 * d. "Shurtleff and Aoyagi’s sister were both students at the International Christian University (ICU) in Tokyo. Shurtleff was taking some intensive Japanese language classes when Aoyagi’s sister was a freshman at ICU."

This article falls under the area of: Biographies of living persons

One of the areas here is: Conflict of interest

If an article is written about you, and you want to make sure it is accurate beyond what I can do as a volunteer, using published sources, there are a few places you can reach out to. If you scroll down the Biographies of Living Persons page, you can see this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself

or this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you

You can also contact the OverSight Committee directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight

I hope this helped.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geneva Locke


The article Geneva Locke has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Notability. Actress is only known for a non-speaking role that was used in flashback scenes across 11 episodes of one series"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Henry Winkler
Henry Winkler has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I made a comment.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about an ARBPIA notice
I was looking at the article 2015 Chapel Hill shooting and couldn't figure out how it relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as indicated by the talk-page notice that you added back in 2015. Could you point out how that applies, or would it be fine if I remove the template? SilverLocust 💬 05:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and remove it, I won't object.-Classicfilms (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Audrey A. McNiff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audrey A. McNiff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Audrey A. McNiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. CGP05 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)