User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 2

Saeed Jaffrey
Hi!!

I believe 'The Jewel in the Crown' was a TV series and not a film. The filmography section on Saeed Jaffrey's page has only films, if you can let me know, if it was film too, i would be really grateful, if it is not a film, then i feel that a new filmography section dedicated to just the work on television will be more appropriate.

Thanks Neon 06:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neon,

The Jewel in the Crown was an important television mini-series which is why I added it. It is not unusual for filmographies to include programs that were shown on television if they were popular at the time of release. If, however, you would prefer to make a new section for television, that is fine as well.

Either way, The Jewel in the Crown should be included as a credit listing on the Saeed Jaffrey page, since it is a substantial credit. Classicfilms 2 May 2006


 * Ok, will try making a separate section asap. Thanks. Neon 10:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! Thanks for working on Satyajit Ray. Also thanks for creating the stub for the film Kapurush. I once created many stubs on his films. Over last few months, has improved the article quite a lot. We have plans to go for a peer review of the article soon. However, the size of the article is quite large. I guess some daughter articles have to be created and the main article will need summarisation. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayan, Thanks for the feedback - I am glad to help out. Perhaps a solution to the length of the Ray article, as you suggest above, would be to break it up. I think that an excellent example is the page on Rabindranath Tagore, with each section serving as an introductory paragraph for a much larger article. -- Classicfilms 16 June 2006

Devdas (1935 film)
My edits restored the silent film stub... that was a mistake and I didn't mean to. I did mean to restore "(Hindi: देवदास, Urdu: دیوداس)" because that merely is the title of the film in those scripts... it does not say it is the language of the film. In fact it clearly says "Bengali film" in the opening. I think it is valuable to have Hindi and Urdu listed because the film is released to those markets as well as to the Bengali market. Having the Begali script would be the best but we don't have that yet. It doesn't imply that the film is somehow in Hindi or Urdu. Also, you tend to make 5 edits each time you chamge a page. Please consider using the "show preview" button so you can cut down on those changes as it makes it easier to navigate a page's history. gren グレン 08:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. -Classicfilms 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Vidhu Vinod Chopra
Hi, the expansion was great! However, pl. be careful abt the existing material - His oscar nomination is highly important and it got removed, probably inadvertently, during your edits. Such deletions are almost never noted on RC patrol because your edits were improving the article. btw, you may want to sign-up with the Indian cinema project. --Gurubrahma 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Gurubrahma - Many, many thanks for pointing this out - yes it was removed inadvertently. I went ahead and created a page for An Encounter with Faces and also added the oscar information to his credits. Thanks again for the feedback. -Classicfilms 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vidhu Vinod Chopra
Hi... I really enjoyed your work on Vidhu Vinod Chopra. I was thinking about doing a major write up on his two early films Sazaye-Maut and Khamosh. I would really love it if you could help out on those films (provided you've seen them). Thanks. --Antorjal 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Antorjal - Glad to help out! I haven't seen his early films, but I would be happy to review your articles once you have finished them. -Classicfilms 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your message earlier. I'm thinking about writing up Khamosh pretty soon. Would love all the help I can get, especially reviewing/copyediting etc. Thanks. Rock on. --Antorjal 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be happy to take a look once you are finished. -Classicfilms 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai
Hi! I saw your recent edits in the article. Thank you for the nice work, especially for all the citations. Just keep an eye so that citations are placed immediately after the punctuation mark, not before. I have done a bit of copyediting. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this. -Classicfilms 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gandhi
Hi - my removal of data from the "legacy" section reflects 4 main concerns (a) this article is too long, (b) no need to list so many statues of Gandhi and (c) the films/video games etc. is all too new and overplayed in importance. "Gandhigiri" deserves one sentence - the rest belongs to the article on the film itself. Also (d) the film poster and postage stamps are to be used to describe the stamps/film in question, not Gandhi - this is a "fair use" issue. Rama's arrow 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Rama's arrow  - Thanks for the clarification. I think it is fair to want to trim the article down since it is long and if fair use is an issue with images, the images should be removed. However, the points in the section are legitimate, and deserve reference on the main page. I will cut the film section down since a new section was created and move the material there, but we need to link to the daughter page since the films on Gandhi are relevant to his legacy. -Classicfilms 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lage Raho Munnabhai" is a recent film - you include reviews and accounts of interpretation of that film. This stuff is irrelevant to Gandhi's biography. Bineg a recent film, the "Gandhigiri" stuff might just be hype. Its fair to give it a sentence but I'm definitely opposed to anything more. Discussions of the film's attributes must be reserved for the film article. Rama's arrow  23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the paragraph but I did edit what was already there. It is fair to want to move the information to the film page and give a redirect so I will do that. I also placed legacy above criticism. -Classicfilms 23:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. I apologize for having removed this data without commenting on the talkpage first. Rama's arrow  23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - I appreciate the way in which you reworked the article - it really looks great! I will start editing the film section in a moment. -Classicfilms 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add actor templates
Per a discussion at the Indian cinema project (WP:INCINE) and communication from the larger Wikipedia film project, we are not using actor templates. Project members are removing templates when they see them, though we haven't gotten round to deleting the templates -- which seems to have been a mistake.

Please don't re-add them. If the actor/actress has an article, that is linked to the article for his/her films; the article has a filmography. That's all that's needed! Otherwise we're going to see the bottom of articles bulk up with multiple templates, if every actor who appears in the film gets one. Zora 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. -Classicfilms 15:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Diwali greetings
A belated Happy Diwali!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dwaipayan - Thanks for the greeting - A Happy Diwali to you too!! --Classicfilms 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai
Yes you're right, it is a surprise cameo appearance, no need to spoil the surprise.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great work on the cast list! -Classicfilms 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood Barnstar

 * Hi Plum couch  Talk2Me - What an honor - thanks so much! It's a great film - let's make this a good article...-Classicfilms 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I find myself screaming NOT FAIR!! I wanted to do this yesterday, but fell short of time. I come here today, and see myself preempted. I hope Plumcouch doesn't mind me sharing the honour of awarding you this barnstar. You deserve it, Classicfilms. Great job! All the best for your future contributions.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi thunderboltz(Deepu) - Thank you so much!! I really appreciate the feedback and am glad to help out! -Classicfilms 14:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, just a small note ... I kinda *assumed* that you are a *she*, Classicfilms - if not, please accept my apologies and feel free to change the text of the award. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Plum couch  Talk2Me - Thanks for asking - the text originally used "his" which I changed it to "her" - it is now correct. Not a problem at all!  Again, many thanks for the barnstar... -Classicfilms 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Classicfilm, you really deserve this award. And the way Lage Raho Munna Bhai is going, it should turn out to be a Good Article soon. Then we can even think about FA!! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the feedback - many thanks! Looking forward to seeing edits from others in the Bollywood wikiproject as well...so that the article can continue to grow and improve -Classicfilms 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho... further
I was going through the article. What is lacking (in "Reaction" section or as an independent section) is Criticism, which would contain negative criticism about the film also. If this can be incorporated (and red links turned blue - which should not be a major problem), the article should be ready for being nominated as a GA. What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's tough to get negative words about the film, let alone a wholly negative review! A few words in the IndiaFM review about one or two minor flaws, and this is what I got trying to search for some not-so-praising words for the movie. Also I remember watching a Gandhi-specialist in TV telling about some flaws in the film. But cannot remember which channel. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dwaipayan - Fair enough, though it says something about the film if criticism is hard to find. I have not, to date, come across articles which critique the film on an aesthetic level. I have, however, come across two particular criticisms of the content: a)articles about Jahnu Barua (such as the one you offer from The Telegraph, and b) articles such as this one which argue that Lage Raho "dumbs down" issues related to Gandhi and Gandhism. I would suggest that a subsection under the "Reaction" section is made called "Criticism" which states the above (ie. while there has been little in the way of aesthetic criticism from reviewers, there were two recurring critiques concerning content etc.). -Classicfilms 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with your comments about the red links being turned to blue - I'd also like to add that if there is time, it might be nice to add a few more actor names in order to develop the fact that Vidhu Vinod Chopra uses many of the same actors for small roles --much of the cast of Lage Raho is either from Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. or from Parineeta. -Classicfilms 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho... in Portal:India/Selected article candidates
I've nominated Lage Raho Munna Bhai in Portal:India/Selected article candidates. Hope to get some comments that will help improve the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dwaipayan - Great news, thanks for doing that. I'll be looking forward to the feedback. -Classicfilms 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One more point - I do hope that as feedback comes in, other members of the Bollywood wikiproject will also contribute to the article (though I do appreciate being given credit as a contributor). -Classicfilms 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema, in order to notify people in the project. However, usually response is lukewarm in Portal:India selected article candidates. We may soon have to go for a peer review and/or GA nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Sounds like a good plan... -Classicfilms 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho... even more
Please have a look at other film articles which are FAs at Featured_articles. 'Lage Raho... needs a section on Production. FAs on recent films like V for Vendetta also have this section, rather elaborately. This section should be incorporated before going for a GA nom. WikiProject Films/Style guidelines also lists this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, this is a good start. Could you post this comment on the Lage Raho talk page as well? Thanks -Classicfilms 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - perhaps you could also research and start the production section? -Classicfilms 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I started to do some search, but soon left the process! Am a bit impatient at times :( Anyway, I shall try again. It's tough.--Dwaipayan (talk)

20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Bengal Renaissance and Brahmo Samaj
Please see the Bengal Renaissance talk page. I am looking forward to a positive response from you. With regards. -- Seejee 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Seejee - Thanks for responding to Talk:Bengal_Renaissance. Both articles have developed considerably since that time. However, if you would like to start the article I would be happy to look at it. -Classicfilms 04:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU violation
Your recent edit to Aishwarya Rai has been reverted. We are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people. Additionally, you did not add the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image. Please see WP:FU which explains this policy. Thanks. --Yamla 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies - since the image was used on the film page for Bride and Prejudice, I thought it was within fair use. Thanks for the information - -Classicfilms 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please note that it was the original poster of the image who did not add the "mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image." -Classicfilms 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the fair-use rationale must be added for each use of the image, so given that you were adding it to a new article, you would have to add it. But that's not particularly important here, as the image was unusable.  Please don't think that I'm coming down hard on you, though.  Most people are not aware that only freely-licensed images can be used to depict living people and every editor runs foul of some of the policies from time to time.  Have a good day!  --Yamla 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good words here - I do appreciate the feedback, particularly the clarification about fair use as I wasn't aware of what you wrote above - I certainly will follow these proceedures in the future. Please always feel free to contribute this kind of advice to my talk page in the future since mistakes can sometimes be the path to learning...-Classicfilms 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho Classicfilms!
Hey, well done on your great work on Lage Raho Munna Bhai. The production section is very important though and needs to be made soon before we can take it to GAC. It's looking good though. Also, don't worry about the article if it starts becoming a little too long, please do not delete any content to trim the article, lots of FAs are 50kb and above. Regards.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 05:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. In terms of length, I am following the recommendations found on this page -Article size - which suggest that when an article becomes too long, "readability" becomes an issue. I've been editing the article for style and flow, reducing repetitions and fixing awkward sentences - which can mean that information is condensed. However, if you would like to restore a point and can make a good argument for doing so, then by all means do it. And certainly if you want to add a production section, then by all means, research and write it. Thanks for your contributions to the article. -Classicfilms 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was impressed by your contributions to Lage Raho Munna Bhai. This is one film article which can be cited as model for other film articles and covers all aspects of film comprehensively.Keep up your good work. I was happy to know that you are interested in depictions of Mahatma Gandhi in films.--Indianstar 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Indianstar - thanks for the feedback and glad you like the article (though many people from the WikiProject Indian cinema have been working on it).-Classicfilms 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your FAC contributions, the new synopsis doesn't even mention the fact that Lucky Singh took over the house. The deletion of all the text from the songlist wasn't mandated, the FAC said don't get listy, not that delete all the text.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In following the FAC recommendations, I shortened the synopsis (which I agree was too long). If there are important plot points that need to be restored, go ahead and restore them. Perhaps you could also rewrite the CD section, restoring deleted material as prose, paying attention to style and form. -Classicfilms 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Making of the Mahatma
I have added a "" template to the article The Making of the Mahatma, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain I understand why you are requesting deletion. Could you please explain your reasoning? - Classicfilms 03:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i dreproded it sorryOo7565 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

West Bengal Portal
Portal:West Bengal has been vastly improved by riana_dzasta and  S .D.   ¿п? , with automated selection of articles. It is now a Featured portal candidate. Please have a look. Regards -- P.K.Niyogi 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to. Thanks for letting me know. - Classicfilms 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Novels project tags
I notice that in few cases you have replaced NovelsWikiProject tags with. Please when you add the new tag could you leave to Novels one. Unless of course the article is obviously out of scope and should not have been tagged in the first place. If th India project is working on prose literature as such tagging seems to suggest we should be developing a closer working relationship on these areas of common interest. thanks :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevinalewis   - that sounds reasonable enough. I had assumed that the wikiprojects were roughly the same as cats (ie that subprojects should replace larger more general projects) which is why I made the replacements. I appreciate, however, the clarification above and would be delighted to leave both tags as the articles I think you are referring to (ie, Parineeta, Devdas, Nashtanir) could all use some more work and attention. Thanks for writing. -Classicfilms 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi! How are you? What are you doing these days? Saw you editing in Munna Bhai Chale Amerika some days back. Happy editing! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dwaipayan. Yes, I added a few edits to Munna Bhai Chale Amerika, but there isn't much out there on the subject yet. I've been trying to develop List of artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi, since there are many films on the subject. -Classicfilms 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

 * Thanks for the award! - Classicfilms 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! That was actually the first barnstar I ever awarded to someone apart from myself, no one awards me anything and I thought it'd be good to award other people some barnstars to make them feel proud to be a Wikipedian :D It was nice of you to reply back ;) -- Bhavesh.Chauhan  03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! - that's nice of you. Thanks again -Classicfilms 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

MunnaBhai Template
Hello again Classicfilms! hope you are having a great time on Wikipedia and learning even more ways to make Wikipedia a great website. I just noticed you edited the Template that I made and moved the page to. I thank you once again for making all the templates organised and in the same format on the MBCA article. Your efforts are appreciated. :D Also, I was wondering why you put (English) next to MBCA onto that new template created today. --Bhavesh.Chauhan 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bhavesh.Chauhan - thanks for your feedback and for all the work that you have put into these pages. The trailer for Munna Bhai Chale Amerika indicates that the two main protagonists, Munna Bhai and Circuit will be learning English and traveling to the United States in order to use English there. I thus added it based upon that assumption. However, it would be fair to remove it if you think that's a good idea. -Classicfilms 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lage Raho Munna Bhai
Hi Dwaipayanc - I could use your help with the Lage Raho Munna Bhai page. Thanks -Classicfilms 03:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! What's your plans? IMO, "Production" still needs improvement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to search out some interviews in order to enhance the "production" section (and other sections, maybe). Please see, , , , , etc . Have you seen this and  (the latter has probably been used in the article)? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing back. I was thinking the same thing - production is the one section which needs a lot of work and it looks like you have a great beginning with these articles (yes, the web123 article is already there - the epw.org article is great and might work in the external links or review sections since it expresses opinion rather than fact). Perhaps you might be willing to go through these articles and develop the production section (or place the articles in other sections)? I would be happy to look at the article after more material is added. It would also be great if more members of the Bollywood Wikiproject worked on this article as well in order to move it towards an FA nomination. Thanks -Classicfilms 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw the additions to the production section and added a few edits. Thanks for adding this material, it's great! -Classicfilms 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, added some more stuffs. Did in a hurry, some discrepancies might have been introduced. Please see, and please copyedit to make it more enjoyable. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work!! I made some minor copyedits but otherwise the section is really developing. I'm also wondering if a new article should be created - something like "The Munna Bhai series." This way, the long paragraph in the beginning of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lage_Raho_Munna_Bhai#General_background) which appears on all of the Munna Bhai pages could be moved there - rather than repeat it in all of the articles. I've hesitated in the past since it didn't seem long enough, but if other editors think that it is a good idea, I could copyedit an article that is created. -Classicfilms 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I was thinking this "General background" thing was unnecessary for the article. Parts of this section should go to "Production", part is redundant, and maybe some part can well be covered in the lead. In fact, the lead needs to be enhanced. Please consider creating the article on the series. Move the general background there. Disperse the content of the general background within the rest of the Lage Raho Munna Bhai.
 * Next, we've to find out if anything more is available for production. I'm afraid nothing much significant would be found out. Still, we have to try. We can ask people in the Indian cinema project if someone has got some filmy magazine where some details of production might be available. Thereafter, please consider it for peer review. (I have some issues with the referencing styles, like all the references does not have proper publisher names. For example, some citations gives only the name of the websites. But sometimes websites and publishers may be different. eg website is indiatimes.com, but publisher is Times Internet Limited) Such nitpicking may wait, though. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good and fair points. Perhaps you would want to copyedit the reference styles?? - I agree with all of your points and if you or someone would like to clean them up, that would be great. Let me think of a way to create a new article for the "general background" and move that paragraph out of the Lage Raho (and other articles). Maybe I can get to it in the next few weeks. -Classicfilms 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I created the page Munna Bhai series and will proceed to add it to all of the related articles. This will replace "general background." -Classicfilms 16:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Lage Raho...
Hi! I have not read the whole article lately. But have a feeling that it's quite well-placed. Please try to read some film-related Featured articles. One of my personal favourites is Tenebrae (film). Also have a look at others. Since Lage Raho is already a good article, you may or may not consider a peer review. My personal suggestion is a peer review. One request. Could you please reply my messages in my talk page? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the "Update: Lage Raho..." Great suggestions per peer-review. I may tweak the article a bit more for awhile first, looking at a few other featured articles as it could benefit from further clean-up. I posted this same response on your talk page. Thanks for your help and feedback. -Classicfilms 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Awards" should come later. In fact, IMO, it should be the last section of the article. Also please provide citation in awards section. It looks odd to lack citation in one section while others are studded with inline citations!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * re: Awards. I moved the section to the bottom. I do think the awards section could use a re-write - though I'm a little perplexed as to what to do about references. Each award is connected to a wikilink which itself has an original source. I checked the Media section of "Featured Articles" and looked at Casablanca (film) which also uses wikilinks rather than references. If you know of an example of a well-written "awards" section which uses references in addition to wikilinks, I would be interested in seeing it. -Classicfilms 19:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "plot" needs work. First section is ok. But the next para is tough to understand for those who have not seen the film. Since spoiler warnings are in place, more of the story can be detailed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've developed the plot according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. The current word count is 638 words so more can be added if you would like to go ahead and make additions. I do respect the spoiler policy and so if there are details I left out that you feel are important, please restore them. However, the policy also offers Pulp Fiction as an example of a sophisticated method of revealing plot which offers spoilers, but in a thematic way thus enhancing the quality of the article. In other words, it will increase the quality of the article if, rather than just listing spoilers, we can present them in a thematically interesting way. I am open to suggestions. -Classicfilms 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I partially re-wrote the plot. Please see. Bye the way, I read the article today (except the awards portion). It's a very pleasant and smooth read. Nice job. IMO, once we can work out a way for a simpler "awards" section, it can be promoted for FAC. (a daughter article may need to be created). In fact, I am submitting it for a peer review. Once the peer review is over, you shall have to go for the FAC. let's see what the community thinks about the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Great!! I just edited the plot and restored some material which I think is useful, particularly terms which might be confusing to people who are not familiar with Indian culture. Please make any other changes you feel are necessary. As for the awards, I can't seem to find a style guide for this topic - if you can or if someone has an idea for cleaning up this area, please go ahead and make the changes. Thanks for submitting it for review. -Classicfilms 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion on the plot is to remove the details of Kkhurana, Batuk Maharaj, Simran, Manglik etc. Without those details, the plot seems easier to grasp. I have retained a version without those details in one of my sandboxes, You can visit it here. We can retain the present version of the plot in the article for the time being, and add a link to the alternate plot in the peer review. I hope at least some users will read both the plot summaries, and comment. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the need for clarity - so I re-wrote the section a bit. Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lage_Raho_Munna_Bhai#Plot. I do believe that in keeping with  the guidelines for creating a synopsis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot this material should remain. It details a very important subplot and explains why Lucky wants the house. To remove it will leave a hole in the construction of the overall story. If it is a matter of clarity, the section should be edited rather than removed. -Classicfilms 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * re: Awards section. I like the awards section on this page: Titanic (1997 film). What do you think about using it as a model? It is also listed under "reception" and I'm wondering (if we trimmed the paragraph a bit) if the awards section should be moved there? -Classicfilms 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Lage Raho...
Hi! I am slowly working on the references. A few were not retrievable, so changed those. Deleted one ref from a blog-like site (unreliable source). No response so far in Peer Review (which is not uncommon). In case things go like this, you have to move the article to FAC once we're finished with the refs. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input and edits - and for cleaning up the references. Perhaps you could go ahead and move the article to FAC when you think the time is right, since you have done this before? -Classicfilms 15:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've added some info in Production, and also some in impact. Going through all the references would take some more time.
 * I'd like to request you to go for the FAC, since it's you who have done the work. If for some other reasons you are not ready, I can take the role of proposer of FAC. But one has to do something for the first time! Many people should be there to assist, including me. After all, it's Lage Raho Munna Bhai. Right?
 * The film is my favourite since Lagaan. Did you see Lagaan? Anyway, the plan for the time being is to go through all the refs, then FAC. One point: this link (providing citation for "While the film was not screened at the conference, participants were given a version of it on DVD") in ref is not working. I tried to manage a similar news, but could not. Can you please try to replace this with some other citation? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like you've completed the work with the references, correct? That is what I meant... As for FAC, I would actually appreciate it if you would make the FAC proposal, though you can mention the fact that I worked on the article as well if that seems more just. I also fixed the broken link above and made a few changes to the DVD section. Just let me know after you have made the FAC. Thanks for your work on the article. -Classicfilms 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai is in FAC
The FAC has started. Enjoy!--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three cheers for Gandhigiri! :-) -Classicfilms 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho... FAC
I feared this might happen with the images (FAC objection). Have removed two images. Requested for review in the FAC. I've uploaded three posters of the film. And requested  for a review. Depending on his comments, the images may be used. Let's see. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a fair critique and I think the article can be reorganized with public domain images. I've been looking through Wikimedia commons and there are quite a few images related to Gandhi that might be useful - social and cultural impact for example might do well with this image:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gandhi_Willingdon_caricature_1932.jpg


 * The entire list for Gandhi is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K._Gandhi#India I'll look around for other public domain images that might be of use. -Classicfilms 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the objection is fair. Let's see what JKelly has to say. He is an expert in image issues. The caricature you linked is good, but depends the way of incorporation in the article. Slight background informatiom may be needed in the image caption.
 * How about the images of Salt Satyagraha (Dandi March)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also thought that was a good image to use here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lage_Raho_Munna_Bhai#Social_and_cultural_impact and perhaps move the "gandhigiri" image above. As long as the image fits the theme of the first paragraph of this section it's fine - why don't you pick one and add it? -Classicfilms 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorporated one Dandi march image. Please see, and modify the caption if necessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great. What about this image - since it is a book cover? It could go in the Production section.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Myexperimentswithtruth.jpg -Classicfilms 06:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm...aaaaa...ummmm (!)...well, the autobiography cover can be included. It is not that important though. Anyway, it won't harm either, IMO. --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's wait to see JKelly's comment. Book cover is not ok in this article. Book covers are inherently fair use, and fair use for the book article only (unless it is PD for some other reason). Let's not include it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho query
What is the source for different country ratings (PG, U etc). IMDb tells just USA and India ratings.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure since I didn't add it - I think that this info is not essential and can be removed. -Classicfilms 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I found out sources. IMDb and individual board websites for UK and Aus. No problems. Verifiable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho images
What about this image for the production section (reference to classic Bollywood film as well as to Sunil Dutt and Nargis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mother_India_poster.jpg -Classicfilms 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, this won't be good for the following reasons: (1)Posters are probably not public domain, and just fair use for related articles. (2) The poster does not seem to enhance the quality of the article. Seems unrelated or distantly related.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho reviews
I added reviews to the review section and removed the Rotten Tomatoes site which is currently only a preview site and does have the entire range of reviews - though I added one of its reviews to the article's review section. -Classicfilms 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've provided fair use rationale for the images, and also reduced the size of that one. Have fixed some refs, too.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Great work - I also added some figures to "Box Office" - please take a look and edit. -Classicfilms 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Need to add USD equivalents. See this. It says overseas collection more than domestic.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think though that these figures need interpretation. A figure in rupees may translate to dollars, for example, but due to the exchange rate may not really indicate the level of the amount (in other words, to say that the film earned $2 million U.S. dollars does not really indicate how high a figure Rs 69.97 crore really is). -Classicfilms 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho... interesting
I emailed Abhijat Joshi to have a look at the article, and comment (regarding authenticity, comprehensiveness and any other points). He replied that he is going to take a look in this weekend. It would be good. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic idea! Thanks for doing that. You might want to make a note about this on the FAC page too since this will put edits on hold for a bit. I'm looking forward to reading his response. -Classicfilms 07:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs to be noted in the FAC page. Because there is not really any need to put edits on hold. Let's have the reviews in FAC. Many reviews are based on structural and style aspects of the article. Whereas Mr Joshi will mainly comment on content (assuming he is not much familiar with style aspects of wikipedia). I've requested one or two wikipedia users to have a look. For example,, to comment particularly on the footnotes. Also requested Taxman to have a look, and his observations were really helpful. So, I think, such a note is not needed in the FAC page.
 * Can you activate your email account in the wikipedia user page? Or else, you can email me, so that I can get your email id and forward you the mail from Mr Joshi. (You can go to my user page and click "E-mail this user" in the "toolbox" in order to mail me). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Email setup
You've to click "My preferences" on the panel hovering on the right upper corner of wikipedia page. In "User profile" tab on "My preferences" you have to provide your email id and also select "Enable e-mail from other users". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not good
I am having trouble in internet connection. Just messaging you from a cafe. The lead of the article is in pathetic condition. Please remove all those big quotes. It's ruining. Don't worry about the 54 kb size. I am attending to that. he previous lead was perfect. No need to add quotes in lead. Taxman did not say to increase the lead. I'm on a hurry. Will elaborate soon. But please consider reverting. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about 50 kb size. It's the readable prose size that matters. IMO, readable prose size at present should not be more than 35kb. I'll later measure and post that in FAC. Have mercilessly shortened the lead. Please see. Some refs were repeated. Fixed those. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine. The only other material I removed from this version was the cast list (which I'm not sure we really need, but restore if you think it is necessary) and the quotes from Gandhi's grandchildren in the section "High Profile Screenings" (again, restore if you think they are necessary). Otherwise, good re-write. -Classicfilms 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Actually I got scared to see those two big quotes in the lead. Probably reviewers would not approve of those, as lead is supposed to be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points." Big quotes may hinder this. In fact, still have some worries about the shortened quote. Let's see if somebody talks anything about that.
 * Cast list is not needed. Names of actors are there in the infobox, and portrayal of characters are discussed in the plot. Unless someone specifically asks, there is no need to incorporate that box. Removing those 2 quotes of Gandhi's desceendants was ok, so far as reducing content was done. I later checked the readable prose size and mentioned that in the FAC. The article is not very big. It's almost ok-ish. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I took away the block quote marks, though I think the quotation itself helps so I kept it. If the intro needs a further re-write to conform to the rules, please go ahead and do it. -Classicfilms 16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also thought the existing quotation is rather ok. Let's see what people have to see.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So far so good...
Well, so far the FAC is going well. Some excellent observations, and supports. Hope Mr Joshi would have a look soon. One question: In plot, "...the "Second Innings House" would be the most auspicious place for Sunny and Simran to live". I forgot the details of the movie, so could not remember this detail. Was it for this reason Lucky Singh was trying to get hold of the house? Please don't mind, I asked that just to be double sure! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Numerology - Batuk Maharaj (the astrologer) used this method to decide it (I believe it is discussed in the final scene with Batuk Maharaj - Circuit makes a comment to Munna about this). -Classicfilms 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

General feeling
So how are you feeling about FAC? It's going good. So far, no great obstacles. Hope after this you'd be churning out some more great articles for FAC! In fact, why not try Gandhigiri next? A lot of things from Lage Raho... could be used. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FAC looks great - as for future FACs, maybe I'll leave that to other editors who contribute to the Bollywood wikiprojects. -Classicfilms 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

General feeling...contd
Well, I will try to persuade you to try to improve Gandhigiri, and, if possible, try for FAC, too. Though I don't have a vast experience in Wikipedia, it's easy to understand you are a labourious writer. Also, your english writing is good (mine is mediocre, I do small mistakes and have to resort to others for copyedit and good flow). I will request you to improve Gandhigiri. Of course, others will be there to help.

Bye the way, do you have any other plans? Movie articles or otherwise? Have you gone through Sholay? I started to improve it about a year back, but soon discontinued. However, it's quite possible. I do have a good source for that article. The book written by Anupama Chopra. Have a look, please. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what... perhaps you could encourage some of the other members of the Bollywood wikiproject to develop some of these articles (Sholay is certainly a good choice - Charulata is probably another) and I will, when I have the time (which is really the issue), review and copyedit them. Ok? -Classicfilms 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have good source for Charulata? has some, I guess. Anyway, time is an issue for me, too. I'll inform you if I can improve Sholay.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing directly on the film but there is quite a bit on Ray that includes discussions of it - he has been cited as saying it was one of his favorite films - "The Cinema of Satyajit Ray" by Darius Cooper is an excellent text but only one of many on Ray - the Charulata article has a bibilography which includes some sources to begin as does the Ray reference section. The best editors to contribute to it would be Ray (or perhaps Tagore) scholars - perhaps some could be convinced to join the Wikipedia and contribute. -Classicfilms 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

New reference for Vietnam
Hi! Are you sure this helium.com ref is better than the previous dna ref (article by Khalid Mohamed). I don't know much about helium, and I am not able to see the referenced article (I don't know why! - may be it's restricted). In any case, dna is a newspaper and Khalid Mohamed is a notable film critic.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to find a reference that spoke as closely as possible to the quoted line - if you can find a better one, please do - or revert back to the original. -Classicfilms 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-added ref of Khalid Mohamed. Retained the ref added by you, too (helium.com). Added similarity with Oh, God!. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! -Classicfilms 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

About another film
Hi! Have you read this article Manos: The Hands of Fate (currently in FAC)? Seemed very interesting to me. Try to read. It is one of the the worst films ever made :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting. -Classicfilms 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho FAC
Congratulations on the ongoing FAC which seems to be on its way to becoming the first Bollywood article to make it onto the main page. Feels great to see something I worked on finally make it to FA and well done on doing what I couldn't. Brilliant job, article is great and is a great model for all influential Bollywood movies. Good luck with the Editor Review as well. Once again, congrats.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 03:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lage Raho Munna Bhai is now a featured article! The first Bollywood FA. Congratulations!!--thunderboltz(TALK) 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the both of you! -Classicfilms 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats Classic! It was extremely enjoyable to work with you. I am repeating, you are a good writer and can try to churn out more FAs. If you can manage time, please do so :) Others will be ready to help you in every ways possible. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be happy to be involved in another FAC, perhaps providing copyediting or feedback - just keep me updated on other projects - you are also a good editor, keep it up. -Classicfilms 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good works guys, Lage Raho Munna Bhai, the first Indian film to become a FA. Congrats Amartyabag   TALK2ME  07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Gandhigiri
Have started to improve Gandhigiri, rather in a random way. Copy-pasting stuffs from Lage Raho.... Later, this would need modifications so that Gandhigiri stands out as a different article. As a starter, though, copy-pasting is not bad :) Will have to decide the structure of the article, as well. Let's accumulate some content first. Style issues may continue simultaneously. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. -Classicfilms 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut out parts of the "copy and paste" that were more about the film than this topic. We should probably limit edits to material that is specific to Gandhigiri. -Classicfilms 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. That's what I meant when I wrote "Later, this would need modifications so that Gandhigiri stands out as a different article". Otherwise the article Gandhigiri would seem to be a discussion of the movie rather than a stand-alone article. Hope this article would also improve, just like the film. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a structure in Gandhigiri talk page. Please see.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. -Classicfilms 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
I've been an anonymous background follower of your succes story with Lage Raho Munna Bhai, as I've been using it to inspire my writing of my magnum opus, Sivaji: The Boss - the next best Indian cinema article after the two FA's. I am going to ask you to do me a HUGE favour by helping out in the article - fixing, cleaning, hoovering etc. Can you respond on my talk page, if you agree? Thank you very much. Regards Universal Hero 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your nice post. I looked at the article and it is quite impressive. I am not familiar with this film or genre so I'm going to ask User_talk:Dwaipayanc to contact you. My one suggestion would be to wait until the film is released for a little bit of time before taking it to FAC and to watch for the articles that appear after the release. -Classicfilms 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Next Project?
Since you did a splendid job with Lage Raho Munna Bhai, I'll invite you to take part in making another Gandhi film become as good as it can. The project set to be started is the Kamal Haasan-Shah Rukh Khan-Rani Mukherji-Vasundhara Das, Hey Ram. If you're interested can you respond on my talk page. Universal Hero 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to take a bit of a break from FAC's for awhile (due to time constraints) - it looks like Dwaipayan has a lot of good ideas to work with. -Classicfilms 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How are you?
Hey! How are you doing? Working on any particular article? Watched any classic films lately? :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Well, as you can see, I've been tweaking the Lage Raho Munna Bhai article. Any discussion as to when a proposal should go out for it to be a "Today's Featured Article?" And no "classic films" at the moment, though maybe when things slow down a bit... -Classicfilms 06:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also been working on a few articles that need work if you are looking for projects. Much of Gandhism is unreferenced and needs to be rewritten with sources. Also, I'd like to develop the article, Giri (Sanskrit) which will help to develop Gandhigiri. -Classicfilms 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A possible problem in featuring Lage Raho.. as Today's Featured Article may be the lack of free images. I am not sure about the policy in case of featuring movie articles without relevant free images in the main page.Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting - I didn't realize it would be a problem. Is there a specific rule that states the number of images such an article needs? At some later point, if people are interested, it might be worth exploring. -Classicfilms 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I should reword my comment. Lack of free images may prevent image being displayed in the main page. The short summary of the article (usually a part of the lead) that appears in the main page is accompanied by an image (there have been a few exceptions when no images were displayed in the main page accompanying the summary of the article). In case of Lage Raho... we may not use fair use images as the accompanying image in the main page. I am not sure though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop!
How do you explain this? Remember, you have NO right to edit others' comments. --Ranvir Sena 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Ranvir Sena - I am happy to discuss edits with you but please adhere to No personal attacks and Civility when making comments. I think that your points about the merge are fair under the neologisms rule and that that was a good point.-Classicfilms 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Need your Support
Please support or place ur views on the article Lage Raho Munna Bhai at Today's featured article/requests so that this article may be put on the Main page on September, 01. This is the first anniversary of the film’s release. Your kind support may help to achieve this feat. Pls. forward this message to others you know. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  12:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page
Hey! Lage raho is in main page. I did not notice it was coming!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful news! -Classicfilms 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hats off classicfilms. :) I have written something about you and Lage raho.. on here. Kittu 09:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshroshan (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you! -Classicfilms 12:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey!

As you are the one responsible for the FA Lage Raho Munnabhai (which does not seem to be a FA after the last edits of some user.) I turn to you, please do something. I'm trying to reach a FA for Preity Zinta (an Indian actress), and now many users claim that it contains too many non-Rs sites. While working on the article, I was looking for reliable sources, and the only FA article which has Indian sources in it, is Lage Raho Munnabhai. So now, they claim many sites to be unreliable. Everyone who sees "Bollywood" in the site title makes his own conclusions that it is unreliable. How can it be possible?

We've started some discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

They claim that boxofficeindia.com, bollyvista.com, The Times of India (!!!) are unreliable. That's a shame. Please do something. I'm loosing the promotion of Zinta, and Lage Raho Munnabhai will soon be taken up for a FAR.

Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi  Shahid  - I am extremely busy with work at the moment so I won't be editing very much. You should talk with User:Dwaipayanc who did a lot of work on the "Lage Raho" article (I should add that I am just one of many editors who worked on that article - whatever happens to it now is up to Consensus). Dwaipayanc is more experienced in these areas than I am and would be a better person to discuss them with. Good luck, -Classicfilms 16:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there..
Hi! Did you enjoy 3 Idiots ? --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I certainly did - not as much as Lage Raho perhaps but it was certainly a well-conceived film. Taare Zameen Par is my favorite Aamir Khan film, but I think 3 Idiots is certainly right after that - I thought he was wonderful as Rancho. Good to hear from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

3 Idiots contd
I liked it quite a lot. However, slightly less than Lage raho... Already saw it 3 times!--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've beat you - I've seen it 4 times! And I suspect that there will be a 5th :-) It's such a funny film that I laugh each time. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Yes of course I am well. I had a good laugh regarding the fact that Spacemen "boycott"s Salman and Sanjay. Really.. hehe... How are you doing? How many times did you see 3I finally?--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lol :-) Good to hear it. Total count came to four times for 3 Idiots and am now awaiting the DVD. Need a bit more "Real Life" time these days but have put up Taare Zameen Par for GAC which looks like it will take a few months. They seem to be two of Aamir Khan's best films and if you think about it, share quite a bit in common. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of accolades received by Lage Raho Munna Bhai


The article List of accolades received by Lage Raho Munna Bhai has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Obscure, overly-specific list, as discouraged per WP:SALAT

While all 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. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the article talk page. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai
That's a lot of edits on an article that was already FA. Was it really in that bad shape? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  23:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the links were out of date. The article itself is fine - it just needed a bit of trimming and clean up. It should be fine now. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * You read my mind Dwai. I could use one right now...LRMB had fallen into a bad state but I've done a basic clean up. If you see anything else let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much!! I appreciate the feedback. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)