User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 4

Gandhi
Thank you for fixing my edits.Hornplease 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Hornplease - Actually, you did a great job, I was really impressed. It's my habit to go in and tweak. Thanks so much for your hard work. -Classicfilms 15:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Durga Puja
Belated greetings! -Classicfilms 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Greetings to you, too :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi!! How are you? --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Haven't heard from you in awhile. What articles are you working on now? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know I'll be away for a few days, if I don't respond right away. I don't know if you noticed but Parineeta (2005 film) is now G.A. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I have noticed. Not only Parineeta, several other film articles such as Lagaan has become GA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm back - this is great news. Perhaps another will make F.A. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Samaj/ Brahmo / Brahmoism
Dear User:Classicfilms. I suspect you know something about Brahmoism, so I refer to an old discussion you initiated on the Bengal Renaissance involving Brahmoism. I quote - "Fair enough. Another solution would be to divide the Brahmo Samaj article into two - one devoted to the history and development of the Brahmo movement (which is associated with the Bengal Renaissance) and one which talks about Brahmoism as a religious movement. -Classicfilms 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC) This article (from the website for the Rabindra Bharati University Museum, Kolkata) called The Tagores and Society reflects the direction I am suggesting above. -Classicfilms 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)". Through a completely different set of circumstances what you had foreseen is taking place. If this interests you, kindly check out Brahmoism, Brahmo, Brahmo Samaj AND their talk pages which are now getting overwhelming. There are some significant changes taking place in Brahmoism now. Although the issues at present are limited to issues like "Can Communists be Brahmos?", the others in the pipeline are "challenging" to say the least. YTG. Yvantanguy (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Yvantanguy - Thanks for the post. Yes, quite awhile ago I did make this suggestion. My knowledge is a relatively academic one concerning the Brahmo Samaj as a social movement during the Bengal Ren. I have reviewed all of the pages which have been created in the meantime. I'm pretty busy in RL to become involved in long discussions at this point though I do think that the vote could go either way depending upon how well developed all three articles become. Perhaps if they are merged again into one article, the article could be written in such a way as to state that there was a social movement which developed from the religion specific to the Bengal Renaissance, which is in some respects separate from general discussions of the religion. Hope this helps. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

IIFA Awards
Hey friend!

I would like to discuss the IIFA Best Film added by you at the bottom of every winning film. I honestly don't think the IIFA awards are notable/important enough to add these tables. The standard is usually going for the most important award ceremony, the Filmfare, which is fine (and of course the National Film Awards). However, IIFA is a relatively new award ceremony. Also, there are many award ceremonies except IIFA, like Star Screen Awards (which is far more important than IIFA), Zee Cine Awards etc, and adding only one out of the list is POV. On the other hand, the addition of each will create a mess. Back in time we had this discussion regarding infobox actor. Only National (the most important in India), and Filmfare (in Bollywood) deserve a mention in the infobox and in boxes as well. Otherwise it will create a huge deal of a mess.

Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Shahid,


 * Good to hear from you and I appreciate your insights. I do agree with you about Filmfare and National Film Awards being the best known and oldest awards. Before reverting my edits, however, I wonder if I could try and make an argument for IIFA? Of course, consensus rules here, but I would like to share my thoughts on this. Let me know what you think. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick reply. I think it's your right to share your thoughts on this. I must say that I think it's an amazing and prestigious award ceremony, but one of many such ceremonies as this. Zee Cine and Star Screen are even older than this one, and the Star Screen awards are decided by a respected jury, not votes, and have been running for almost 15 years now. They are always particularly discussed post the awards season, and have as much hype as Filmfare in these terms. Screen Awards are therefore much more recognised than Zee Cine and/or IIFA, so if we had to choose, it would first of all be Star Screen. We even thought to try and add it to the template, but finally decided to let it go.
 * Of course every ceremony is important and notable (in fact, that's why they have wikiarticles :)), but Filmfare and NFA are the most important (years since establishment as well as general recognition), and then Screen and all the other ceremonies, but choosing between all the other ceremonies, and giving the main force to IIFA which is clearly the newest (and one of several ceremonies with the same piece of recognition) is, as said, POV and can be considered to be totally wrong (IMO, it is - that's why I'm against having these tables), because it would imply that IIFA is particularly important, which is incorrect. It will also encourage users to add this award on actors' articles (I mean, Best Actor, Actress etc.), which is a mess. Adding all the ceremonies in response would create a total and bigger mess ;).
 * On a more lightened note (and BTW), have you heard of Lage Raho Munnabhai winning four National Film Awards? And secondly, have you seen the new long awaited assessment of Preity Zinta? :)
 * Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me congratulate you for helping to bring Preity Zinta to FA status. I know that you invested a great deal of time and energy into it. That's great news and no, I hadn't heard about it. Do let me know when it is "Today's Featured Article." Also, I did not know about the "National Film Awards" for LRMB. If you have a few moments, could you add the four awards to this article, List of Lage Raho Munna Bhai awards?


 * As for award ceremonies in India, I have been thinking about this for awhile, particularly since there are so many of them. You make many fair arguments above and I think most would agree that the National Film Awards and Filmfare are the oldest.


 * However, Notability (films) guidelines moves these arguments beyond what is generally known about these two awards - that they are the oldest. The guidelines state:
 *  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thus, the National Film Awards would not fit because they receive very little coverage in India and abroad relative to Filmfare and the others. As for the other ceremonies, of course they all receive a great deal of coverage in South Asia. However, international coverage is limited (unless it is the press of the country in which the ceremony is taking place). In contrast, however, I have been impressed over the past few years with the level of international coverage received by the IIFA (regardless of where the ceremony is taking place). For example:


 * The BBC
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1915331.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/6506355.stm


 * The Hollywood Reporter
 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/asia/thailand/e3i0c79027147aedf759968bdece3cde47c
 * Variety
 * http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117985065.html?nav=news&categoryid=1983&cs=1
 * The Times Online
 * http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/bollywood/article4098331.ece


 * The Wikipedia is an international, rather than national project and thus the level of international coverage is an issue for notability. As far as I know, none of the other ceremonies receive this kind of international coverage and thus this creates an argument of notability for the IIFA.
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I tend to differ; this is very wrong IMO. This guideline is for general notability. And yes, it's great -- all the awards are notable. What you have presented now is the way to chack the notability of a topic. I did not say the IIFA awards were not notable. All the awards are notable, and that's why they have Wikiarticles. This guideline (not a policy BTW) does not discuss awards in particular. And it does not talk about worldwide recognition or years, whether it's national or international. Nobody says it is non-notable. Comparing the National Film Awards to IIFA would be very funny; the NFA are conducted by non other than the government of India. And coverage should be given in reliable sources - it does not matter whether it's national or international. And believe me, the National Film Awards do receive immense coverage.
 * In fact, in terms of national and international recognition, all these awards are notable, and the national film awards on the top. See Zee Cine Times Online, NFA in BBC, Filmfare in The Hollywood Reporter and so on...
 * But again, there is no problem with general notability -- all of them are notable and receive similar coverage. We are talking about - what are the most important? And the answer is -- in chronological order -- NFA -> Filmfare -> Star Screen -> Stardust/IIFA/Zee Cine/Bollywood Movie Awards. You can now go and try to add IIFA to infobox actor, but you will be reverted. Even Awards like Cannes (!) are not added.
 * The matter is now, I quote something you may not have noticed (there was an edit coflict):
 * Choosing between all the other ceremonies, and giving the main force to IIFA which is clearly the newest (and one of several ceremonies with the same piece of recognition) is, as said, POV and can be considered to be totally wrong (IMO, it is - that's why I'm against having these tables), because it would imply that IIFA is particularly important, which is incorrect. It will also encourage users to add this award on actors' articles (I mean, Best Actor, Actress etc.), which is a mess. Adding all the ceremonies in response would create a total and bigger mess ;).
 * That it why I think these tables should be removed. There is no place for comparison between Filmfare/NFA and IIFA, which is on the same lever as Zee Cine, Stardust etc.
 * Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's another question for you then. According to this table, NFA -> Filmfare -> Star Screen -> Stardust/IIFA/Zee Cine/Bollywood Movie Awards - how is the choice of Filmfare justified as that is what most of the existing tables record? By this chart, the only tables should be NFA. What has been the logic for listing the Filmfare tables which complies with NPOV? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha! ;) You're right, it should be something like "[NFA -> Filmfare) ->..." NFA and Filmfare are the most important. They all are notable, but we are talking about importance, and NFA and Filmfare are the most important. One for Indian cinema, and the other for Bollywood. They are the most recognised (and that's what mostly can be found in sources -- not the number of times they are mentioned, but the information being written about the awards, and the information will clearly show that NFA and Filmfare are the most important). We cannot deny that. IIFA, Zee Cine, Stardust, Bollywood Movie Awards are all very similar in terms of importance and receive the same amount of coverage. But they cannot reach the level of NFA anf Filmfare, and everybody will agree that winning these awards is much more than winning any other award. It means that if we add IIFA, we have to add all the other, which will create a big deal of mess and bias among editors. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have that kind of a feeling that I have done something wrong. Please tell me now if I somehow in any way offended you. I'm sorry if I did. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, why would you think that? You made very valid arguments and convinced me so I thought I would remove the tables. Wait until I do that and then I have another question for you. Realize that when I added these tables, I was not aware of the ongoing discussions - you explained them very well. I'll be back in a few moments. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For you

 * What a nice surprise to find a barnstar on my talk page. Thank you! I really appreciate it. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! You're truly deserving. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject films peer review of Pather Panchali
Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Pather Panchali. The article has really grown since I last looked at it. I tweaked the opening a bit and the article needs a bit of copy editing, but I do think it has really improved over time. With some input and copy editing, I think it could be moved up to G.A. Good to hear from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the inputs. Please continue. However, I removed the brackets you (probably) introduced in the lead. My opinion is brackets should not be used unless extremely needed. Please have a look. Hope to jump the GA procedure and directly go for FA :) Let's see what happens.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. I'll try to take a look at the article when I can. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!! and further...
That was a pleasant surprise! thanks for the barnstar!!

Now, coming to the image issue. Images of party, set, press meeting etc in Indiafm.com are under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, as can be seen in several images such as and. There are a few such images for Chak De in IndiaFM. please see. Please upload these images in wikimedia, and then use it in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!! The barnstar is long overdue and well deserved...


 * Thanks for the tip about images. Perhaps I can ask you, when you have a chance, to upload the images to the commons? I don't mind doing all of the tweaks etc. to the article (and I really appreciate your help in this area...) but it would be great to have the help of other editors in terms of uploading images - thanks for the tip though about IndiaFM, that is very helpful to know about. I did add a few free images to the article, which are somewhat related to the topic though not the best - it would be great to see more Bollywood film project editors work on the article in such areas as images and adding further information... Though I know you are technically on break at the moment so any help you can give is appreciated!! Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My Name is Khan
Hello Jon513, I recently created a new, referenced article for the upcoming Shahrukh Khan film, My Name is Khan which is now in production. In editing the article, a notice came up that you had deleted this article in the past due to a discussion a year ago which voted for deletion. I read the discussion and it seems that at the time it made sense to delete since there was not a great deal of information on the project. However, consensus also seemed to indicate that when production begins an article should be made. My article reflects a number of future articles that I've made for the Wikipedia and was made under Assume good faith. However, when I'm editing the article, the deletion notice still comes up. I am perplexed by this for as I said, current articles indicate that production has clearly started (you can also check on Google News to see that this is so). I wonder if you could clarify this for me. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If filming has begone for My Name is Khan (I have no personally verified this) then the original reason for deletion no longer applies and I was mistaken to delete it. Please accept my apologies.  I would suggest pointing this out on the talk page so that another admin does not make the same mistake.  Jon513 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, this is always an issue with future film articles. I've left a note on the article talk page - take a look and let me know if I need to say anything else. My major concern was a little different however - when I first began editing My Name is Khan, this page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=My_Name_is_Khan
 * would appear in place of my edits and I could not tell if the system was set up to make it impossible to recreate the article. I wanted to alert you to this in case there was something you needed to do to allow the article to be recreated. This page is no longer appearing, but I think you were right to suggest that I leave a note on the talk page. Thanks for your help and let me know if I need to do anything else, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Auto assessment
I have noticed that you have added WikiProject banners like WP India with the paramater "|auto=yes" for articles like Vipin Sharma. |auto=yes parameter is used only when bots automatically assess them as stub class based on stubtemplates or length of articles. It may be not added when they are assessed manually. FYI --  Tinu  Cherian  - 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My Name Is Khan
Done. Watchlisted it. I'll act strongly against vandalism. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank You!! Now I feel better about taking a vacation...but I'll pop in from time to time. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My Name Is Khan
Hey, are you planning to take the article to WP:GA? If so, the references badly need to be formatted as per WP:Cite web. Just a thought. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Legolas2186 - Excellent and observant point. Normally I approach film articles in stages. During the period prior to release, it is in somewhat of a dynamic/draft stage since it is difficult to tell what will be saved and what will be deleted. Normally, I don't format refs at this time. After the film is released, then the article usually goes through an overhaul, weeding out what is really relevant to the overall quality of the article. That being said, yes, it isn't a bad idea to format refs. It is my least favorite activity on the WP :-) but I would certainly be open to it if I had a little help. Perhaps after the film releases next year, the GA question can be revisited. I would be keen to bring Taare Zameen Par to GA level if that is a film you are interested in writing about and have been waiting for other editors to work on it. Let me know if you think it is one to work on. Thanks for your help with these articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree that formatting can be a pain in the rear. However, using the cite tool is really helpful in these cases. Khan is shaping up good. I need to check the references. Actually I have never promoted any film related articles to GA since I mainly work on the music articles. My first GA film nomination was for Raaz - The Mystery Continues but that failed. I checked TZP, with proper formatting and MoS compliance, the article looks good enough to be an FA. Will work on it definitely. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it takes practice. I worked with a few people to bring Lage Raho Munna Bhai first to GA then FA and brought Chak De India to GA myself. I'm not certain why your GAC failed but perhaps reviewing the above GAs will offer some tips. I would really appreciate help with refs. Please use the tool, tweak, delete, add at will. And it would be fantastic to bring TZP to FAC (or Chak De India). I haven't used the tool myself so I will watch you use it and learn how it functions. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I assume you are familiar with MOS:FILM. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work on LRMB and CDI. Chakh de has the potentials of being FA, however, the first problems are with references. As I saw, most of them have the wrong publishers. That can be corrected fast. And I'm pretty much aware of MOS:FILM, just need to brush it up since the past few months was busy with music related articles. I recently started the WP:MADONNA wikiproject, hence had to shelve much hours there. But I'll definitely start digging around. About Chakh de, the soundtrack section badly needs formatting and expansion. At present it will be difficult for other readers to view the article. The tracklisting section is creating a huge gap. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. By all means, fix any and all issues with Chak De. Music/soundtrack help will be great since that is not an area I am familiar with. The Madonna project should be similar to MOS:Film. TZP, CDI, and LRMB all pretty much follow the basic structure but as you can see there is flexibility. TZP needs more development before it can advance to GA (particularly in production and music related areas). And as I said, I really appreciate edits and fixes to Chak De. GA's and FA's usually occur when multiple editors work on an article so if you can also encourage other editors to work on them as well, that would help. Looking forward to seeing your work. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey friend
Disregarding our discussions on other pages, I missed talking to you. I've met many unkind people in the last few months on here, and it's a great relief to meet you yet again after an extended hiatus.

Anyway, I come to you because I saw the Taare Zameen Par article and was shocked to find out it is not yet a GA. What's up? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Shahid- Great, always glad to hear that editors would like to work on Taare Zameen Par. It is almost but not quite ready for GAC. It still needs more development, particularly in production, which will take the time and research of a group of editors. Why don't you contact --Legolas above who is also interested in working on TZP? I really believe that if a group of editors work on it, we can bring it to GAC. I'd like to see it eventually go through FAC but that will have to be down the road. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear CF I'm so sorry I have not replied to you message. I'll reply to you as soon as possible. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code:

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor
Hey buddy!! How are you?? I have come to ask a favor from you. I am planning to nominate Kareena Kapoor's article for FA status sometime by the end of this year or early next year. User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Shshshsh and I have already looked into the article for a long time and its about time we have some new people look into the article. By looking at the outstanding work you've done on articles like CDI, LRMB & TZP, I can see that you're a really good editor. When you have time, could you please take a look at the article?? I would greatly appreciate it. Regards --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 02:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ - Great article. I just read through it and found it to be well written and interesting. I haven't had an experience with moving a biography to FA so I'm not certain what editors will be looking for, but I thought it was a good read. Is there a specific aspect you would like for me to check? -Classicfilms (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I pinged BOLLYWOOD with my concerns for the biography. It needs quite a bit of tweaking to get the bronze star. In the meantime how r u? Im feeling so bored in office. :( --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew! I have formatted all the references for My Name is Khan. This is how it should be done for the other articles like CDI and TZP also. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I also left a note for you on your talk page. Perhaps I can convince you to do the same thing for the TZP and CDI articles? I think CDI is close to an FAC if a few more editors could go through it. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind workds Classicfilms. I am looking for new editors that can help improve the article by doing things like copyediting, strengthening the prose, etc. Dr. Blofeld, Shahid and I have looked at the article for quite a while and hence when a certain group of people always work on an article for a long time, it becomes difficult to notice things that "new" editors would. That is why I am looking for new editors that can work on this article. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. If there is a particular passage or section you would like for me to look at, let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My main focus is on the lead and the career sections; however, when you have the time, could you please check out the other sections as well? Thanks & Best Regards --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made a few c/e to the article. Feel free to tweak what I have done, they are just suggestions. For the most part it is very well written. I do have one hesitation about the article, however. The "personal life" section is somewhat awkward. I removed what read to me as rumor and speculation which is not appropriate for a WP biography. I left the rest but truthfully, much of it still reads like gossip and rumor and keeping BLP in mind, I would frankly vote against the article for FA if the section were to remain intact as is. My suggestion would be to remove most of the section and combine it with family. All we really need to mention is what we know for certain - that she dated Shahid Kapoor for awhile and is now dating Saif Ali Khan. Where she is living and health issues detract from the quality of the article. Let me know if you have any other questions, -Classicfilms (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we were to follow your advice on combining it with the family, don't you think that it would ruin the flow of the article. The beginning of the article talks about her early life and family, and I am planning to follow User:Legolas2186's advice of merging the early life and family with the career. The format of the personal life section was done by looking at the articles of actresses Angelina Jolie & Preity Zinta. You do make a valid point... but I seriously don't know what to do now. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Legolas2186's ideas are right on target. It doesn't really matter where you merge the section so long as you do so. As it stands, the section holds very few encyclopedic details and reads a bit like a gossip column focusing on rumors that really are not substantiated and I found to be somewhat inappropriate. Remember that a central WP rule is WP:INDISCRIMINATE - just because trivia is out there, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be included in an article. As for the two other biographical articles, to raise them at this juncture lends itself to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The point is that the WP is an encyclopedia and should consist of substantial facts about the individual involved rather than unsubstantiated gossip. I like most of it as I learned about her education and film career. But I really do feel that the rumors about her health are inappropriate and should be removed. There really isn't enough to keep the section as is so I would make the merge that Legolas2186 recommends, but focus on the relationships that can be substantiated and leave it at that. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Legolas2186 has offered to help create a draft of how the article will look like after merging the personal life section. From there on, we can procceed further. Once again, thanks a lot for your help buddy!! :) Regards --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I also left a message for Legolas2186 regarding this discussion. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I have already read your comments and find them useful. I'll surely incorporate them in my draft. In the meantime what are you working on? --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 15:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much CDI and TZP as I mentioned above. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Phew! Well here it is. The draft of the merged version at my sandbox. Further work is needed for the reference formatting and the enlarging of the influences part. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I would support this version over the current one. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I'll leave it for User:Bollywood to see if he/she wants to take it as it is or make some changes, as he/she is the Kapoor article's primary contributer. There is still tons to work on it regarding formatting issues. Those people at FA really can be rude regarding such things. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My Name is Khan
Hello Ronhjones - I wonder if I could seek your input. The My Name is Khan article, about an upcoming film, is subject to frequent vandalism. Awhile ago, I put in a request here: Requests for page protection but did not receive a response either in terms of accept or decline. This film has received a great deal of publicity for quite some time and so I think the article is worth some kind of semi-protection. I would appreciate your feedback on the topic. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any entry at Requests for page protection, I did see an entry at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on 11th August. Unfortunately, if there is no more input on that thread for 24h then it gets archived - which is what has happened - archive. I see 20 or so reverts over the last 2 months, and now someone has just added links to (probably) copyright violation trailers... (reverted).

Should you see a lot of IP in the future then this is what you need to copy and paste into Requests for page protection ==== ====  Semi-protect - high level of IP vandals to this page ~ - just after the line I'll do a week's protection for now, and see how it goes - often vandals will find some other page to play with and don't come back.  Ron h jones (Talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'm not experienced with these requests and mixed the two up. Yes, that is what happened - I was hoping that someone would make the observations you made about protection due to vandalism which is why I thought that is what I had asked for. Anyway, I appreciate your advice and suggestions and the week's worth of protection. I will follow up. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - suggest make a copy of the code above and save as a text file on your PC, ready for future use - this section will be automatically archived in several days, and you will have to hunt for it there! (if you want to copy to your user page, then edit this page and copy from the edit window, so you get the "nowiki" parts as well, otherwise it won't work.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very helpful, thanks so much. I was thinking the same thing, so I went ahead and copied to one of my talk archives (with previous posts related to this film). Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another request
Sorry to bug you again, but if you have a chance, could you take a look at My Name Is Khan? That article receives a great deal of vandalism and I think it is a candidate for semi-protection. The film isn't out yet but it has received a lot of publicity and I think is notable enough to warrant protection. It was protected for one week last month but the vandalism stared again as soon as the protection was taken off. I would be interested in your opinion on this. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added this page to my watchlist, most of the vandalism is from signed in users, I jsut blocked one Weeweesomething. The IP edits over the past few days have actually been ok or even to revert nonsense from two (now) blocked users.- Spaceman  Spiff  01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ask an admin individually they will almost always allow semiprotection, but if you ask at the official WP:RFPP they are pretty strict on avoiding any regulation else they would get flooded. I'm fine with semiprotecting if you don't mind losing the useful IP edits  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The slock would also keep out the logged in vandals, who don't have enough edits to qualify to edit a slocked article  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your input. I created this article about a year ago after it had been deleted a number of times (you can see the history via the first archive on the talk page). If you go through the entire history of the page, you will find a history of vandalism from anon. editors. The only time the article settled down was the one week it had semi-protection. I've kept an eye on it for the past year but it is a lot for one editor. Thanks SpacemanSpiff for adding it to your watchlist. I do feel that there is enough history from anon editors to warrant protection, particularly as this will undoubtedly be an important film when it is released and any SRK film tends to get this kind of vandalism. So I hope semi-protection is a possibility. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi'd for a month.- Spaceman  Spiff  06:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! -Classicfilms (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My Name is Khan
I presume Hindi is not your native language or you were moving quickly, as in this edit you actually reinserted the vandalism. No big deal, just be careful. Sometimes IP's really do help remove vandalism. Anyway, keep up the good work. Hope the pesky RL stuff doesn't take too long. :) - Taxman Talk 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Taxman, Sorry about that. Yes, sometimes IPs do remove vandalism. Appreciate the feedback - this page has received a great deal of vandlism from IPs as well as registered accounts and this one did slip by. Glad to see more editors watching the page. If enough editors watch it, then I think the vandalism could be kept under control without the added protection. For now, it is helpful to have the extra sets of eyes. Thanks again. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Script check
Dear Classicfilms, thank you for your comment on my talk page. I have put the article on my watchlist and will help where I can. In the meantime, you are welcome to participate in a discussion on the Bollywood Talk Page regarding the inclusion of scripts in Bollywood articles. Thanks again, AnupamTalk 23:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can take a look. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a comment. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My Name Is Khan
Thanks for restoring protection toMy Name Is Khan. It is a great deal of extra work for editors otherwise... -Classicfilms (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Now, I just hope the film lives up to expectations, although I'm sure it won't be as good as Taare Zameen Par or 3 Idiots, but that's because I prefer the other Khan. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lol :-) Well, TZP is just a special film and 3 Idiots is one of those films which spoke to many people - both excellent films. I'm a fan of both Khans so I hope for the best for all of the films. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Thank you for your hard work on Taare Zameen Par. Following an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided, I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.

That also means you get one of these:

which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting   into the page code.

Great job - well done. All the best! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!! -Classicfilms (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par
Hey friend. I would kindly request to know why Taare Zameen Par was moved to what it is now. The title in brackets may be its official English title, but I'm not sure that's the way it should be on Wiki, as originally it's Taare Zameen Par. Many films have official English titles but what actually counts is the original Hindi title. From what I see, on IMDB it still is TZP. It's the first time I see a Wiki article having two titles. What do you think? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shaid,
 * I would say it's a fair point for many films but the case with Taare Zameen Par is a little unusual. It was released in India as TZP. It did have a limited run in countries outside of India but not official world releases such as in the case of a film like My Name Is Khan. In the case of TZP, the Disney release on DVD was the official release of the film in countries outside of India such as the U.S. or the U.K. Thus while the film is known as TZP in India, it will only be known as Like Stars on Earth outside (which is the literal translation of the title). The styleguide for naming conventions for the WP:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28films%29#Foreign-language_films


 * reads as:


 * "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the most common title, and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterward."


 * Thus the film now has two official titles which is why they both appear in the header, particularly since this is the English Wikipedia. As I said this is an unusual case but it does now fit within wiki guidelines. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes I heard it was ditributed by Disney. I agree with you, but what do you think about consulting WP:FILMS to be entirely sure? I'll tell you why. It's just so clear to me that this article in on its way to a higher Wiki-standard that I wouldn't want to see it getting into troubles up there... Good work - as always.
 * BTW, have you seen/liked MNIK? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you want to consult WP:FILMS go ahead. I agree that this is potentially an FAC article since it is now GA. I actually thought about it for quite some time before changing the header, mostly because I was wrestling with the definition I put above. In any other case I would agree with you 100% - Lage Raho Munna Bhai for example is the title of that film, not the English translations. It is just the unusual nature of the Disney release for TZP which has pretty much re-named in the film in countries such as the U.S. that it seemed to be more in compliance with WP rules that I decided to make the change. However, as always I am open to debate and opinion and feedback so certainly, go ahead. Thanks for the feedback on the article. I wish it were longer and more comprehensive but there isn't as much out there as I would like. If the article can be beefed up a bit, I'd like to see it go for FAC in the next year or so.
 * Yes, I did see MNIK. I'm a big SRK fan so I always like his films. Chak De! India is still my favorite film. I did like parts of MNIK and not others. But it is an important film in its own right so I'm glad it was made. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well - if CDI is your favourite SRK film (I like it too but mine is still Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa! :)), then don't forget it's also high time this one is promoted!! ;) Did you like 3 Idiots BTW? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, well - sigh. I did try to promote CDI for A listing but no one reviewed it and so it was dropped. And I've been very busy in RL these days, not as much time for the WP. However, if you would like to give CDI the push, I'm all for it. There are a few actor biographies that need to be made and I just haven't had the time. But I would love to see CDI go through FAC. And yes I did see 3 Idiots about four times I think. In some ways, it is similar to TZP - though it is such a fabulous comedy. One of my favorite AK films and Bollywood films to date. I haven't had much time for that article though - hope it makes it to GA. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New Message
Hello User:Classicfilms... how are you? I have come to ask a favor from you. After a long and exhausting schedule of editing, I have finally managed to finish Kareena Kapoor's article, and I am planning on nominating the article for a FAC. However, before doing so, I am looking for a couple of editors that can help me with copyediting the article. Would you be able to help me with this? You can find the edited version of the article in my sandbox. ‎--  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Ok, I'm a bit swamped in RL, but I'll take a look when I have the chance. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par
Hey, I saw that you were the GA nominator for Taare Zameen Par. Great job getting it there. Anyways, I recently got my hands on the Disney release of the film, and will be adding a lot of stuff to the article in the next couple of days. Just wanted to give you a heads up so you don't panic when the article suddenly doubles in size. One of my friends is a great copyeditor, so I think we can get the article up to Featured status in the near future. Ω pho  is  04:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrific! I've been working alone on that article for too long. It is time for more editors to become involved in documenting such an important film. I'd love to see the TZP page go into FAC. Just in case you haven't seen it, make sure that your edits conform to: WP:MOSFILM. I look forward to reading them. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've incorporated the stuff into the article, and will make a few more edits tomorrow. I've also asked my friend to copyedit, so hopefully he'll have enough time to. BTW, what were your sources for the release dates for the soundtrack and UTV DVD release? I couldn't find the info in the sources used by the article, and the soundtrack section give two different dates. Ω  pho  is  04:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work! Let me know when your friend finishes copyediting the article and I will take a closer look when I have the chance. I added sources for both dates - the Disney homepage for the DVD and the Planet Bollywood review (a popular web portal for Bollywood film and music reviews). Glad to see your interest in this film. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job on the soundtrack dates, but we still a source for the UTV DVD release (I found the dates for the Disney release). Also, different sources report different lengths for the film (either 156 or 165). Which do you think we should use? Ω  pho  is  16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit rushed at the moment -- but this article covers the release of the UTV DVD in India on the day of the release, July 25. If you don't think it is clear enough, then we can take the release date out:

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2008/07/25/4114/
 * I would go with the time given on the DVD cover since it is the most notable source we have. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is dated the 25th of July, but does not state within the article that that was the date of release. Don't worry, though. I'll try to find an article that has it.
 * Later today I'll check my DVD and see how long it is. The difference may stem from the end credits. I think it was about ten minutes, so one source may be including it in the time while another doesn't. Ω  pho  is  18:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I would go with the most official version you can track down. I quickly skimmed through the article - you've really developed it. Once you are finished with your edits, let me know and I'll review the entire document. I'd rather let you work first before modifying edits. One thing about the cast - I'm perplexed by "mother" and "father" in quotes, since these were not the terms used in the film (perhaps in the subtitling or dubbing, but quotes should not reflect that). Either remove the terms in quotes or add the phrases Ishaan uses - I believe he called his father "papa" - the mother was either "maa" or "mama" -- he also called his brother "dada" which is a term which means elder brother -- that should appear in quotes. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed a number of footnotes such as #64 which are not properly formatted. For an FAC, we must format all footnotes in a consistent way. Are you planning to go back and reformat? -Classicfilms (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I usually wait till I finish the article before formatting refs. Speaking of which, two of the refs you used today seem kinda iffy. I can easily see an FAC reviewer targeting those two. Ω  pho  is  22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to specify - I'm using pretty standard refs for the Bollywood film pages. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And am also using the writings of standard film critics in India. If you let me know which ones, I can discuss why I used them. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. My browser crashed before I could reedit my message with specifics. I am referring to WebIndia and GlamSham. If you know of FAC's that have passed using those refs, then we should probably take note in case those refs are challenged. Ω  pho  is  22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in a recent edit, you wrote that praise turned to criticism after it didn't get an Oscar nomination. This implies criticism of the movie, which the sources do not support. Ω  pho  is  23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see the issue. Well, there are a couple of things going on here. The issues in this section was big news in India and altered the perception of the film when it happened. Unfortunately it happened awhile ago and it is a bit harder to find the sources though I'll keep looking. It is important that the article reflect these events if we are to give an accurate history of the film.To your points - I understand the concern about the URLs of the references, but with Bollywood films you have to go a bit further. In both cases, these Bollywood portals are either carrying articles by respected critics or reproducing articles from noted portals.

a. Glamsham:

http://www.glamsham.com/movies/scoops/09/jan/13-taare-zameen-par-boy-in-slumdog-millionaire-010904.asp The article is written by: Joginder Tuteja, Bollywood Trade News Network

Check the music reviews for Bollywood Hungama, it's the same person. Google his name, you will see he is a respected film critic in India. The Bollywood trade news network is also a useful source. The story carried here was pretty big when it first broke and needs to be covered properly in the article. If you can find another source that you think is better, go ahead but if it is a problem in FAC, I'll discuss it with the reviewers.

b.Same is true of Web123 which is a portal carrying an aricle by United News of India, a respected outlet. http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090222/1182775.html

c. I can tweak the wording a bit but yes, after TZP was not nominated, both the film and Khan were heavily criticized. I'll try to dig up some more sources as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just changed the sentence - this should work better. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reddiff ref doesn't show criticism for the film, though. It just notes that TZP didn't get as much attention as Lagaan did. Ω  pho  is  23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure it does:

"Not to the surprise of many watchers of foreign language Oscar nominations, Aamir Khan's [ Images ] directorial vehicle Taare Zamren Par could not make into the Oscar list. The movie just hasn't been garnering the kind of mainstream reviews and media attention the actor's Lagaan [ Images ] received a few years ago. It received high praise from many key American publications including The New York Times and Los Angeles Times and garnered one of the five nominations."


 * That is pretty harsh criticism. And if you look further down to the refs which compare it to Slumdog Millionaire, the criticism is obvious. The entire paragraph actually indicates criticism. What isn't clear in this respect? -Classicfilms (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of that quote is that it didn't get nominated because it wasn't noticed enough in the mainstream. It doesn't state any criticism of the film itself. Ω  pho  is  00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if the Slumdog refs include cricisms, they should definitely be added to the article. Ω  pho  is  00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing the kind of criticism that a film critic writes and the kind of criticism that happens when something doesn't win an award. The rediff quote is a criticism -- it is stating that this isn't the kind of film that should have been sent to the Oscars which was a standard complaint when it wasn't shortlisted. Not everyone felt that way though, others thought it was a great film that was overlooked. As for Slumdog, the two films where juxtaposed in terms of award success/failure and it is pretty clear from the articles that this is what is happening. I'm still not clear what the problem is with the way it is. In terms of FAC (which I've been through with another Bollywood film article, Lage Raho Munna Bhai), I'm more concerned with style, mechanics, word choice, and formatting, all of which still need work. I will continue to look for more references though. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tweaked the sentence again. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. Quotes like those should be put into the article to expand upon the statements currently used. Ω  pho  is  00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Missed you there -- which quotes? Did you want to add something else? -Classicfilms (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reddiff quote that you cited above. Ω  pho  is  01:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...well I'm not sure the section needs it, but if you would like to add it, go ahead. I've tried to develop the section so that it captured all of the different responses to this series of events. I think it is ok for now, unless you can find more sources. I have to sign off for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that the article currently says that they were critical of the decision to nominate it, but it doesn't list why. Integrating the above quote (such as the lack of mainstream attention) would better explain it. Ω  pho  is  01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is kind of self-evident. There were many reasons why, after it didn't win, some people said it shouldn't have been nominated. The rediff article just offers one opinion so I don't think quoting it makes sense now. I think it is fine as is.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

TZP FAC
I have some points though. Where can I make them? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrific!! Though I should note that the article hasn't gone into FAC yet. It's at the GAC stage and I and another editor, User:Ophois, have been working on it. You could drop a note on Ophois' talk page and perhaps just start a new section on the TZP talk page. The article is in need of more editors and any and all suggestions, edits would be greatly appreciated. I'm a bit swamped at the moment in RL but will check in a little later in the week to help out. And please spread the word - TZP is long overdue for an FAC and the more editors on it, the better. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

TZP
Thanks for letting me know, friend. I'll take a look as soon as I have rhe time to do it. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm also swamped in RL for the moment. I'd really like to see this article move to FAC. User:Ophois has also added quite a bit to the article and is someone to work with to move it in the FA direction. Please also spread the word - I really think the TZP article has the potential to become an FA if enough people work on it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But, do not forget CDI!! :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TZP
Hey, just wondering what the status was of your project friends. Ω pho  is  18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - why don't you contact them directly. It's probably a good idea to have other editors from the group look at the article: User talk:Shshshsh,User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, User talk:SpacemanSpiff, and User talk:Legolas2186. Sorry, I'm a bit swamped in RL at the moment but I'll try to check-in in about a week or so. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Old Hindi films
Do you know much? I have a question, asked at Wikipedia_talk:INB. Any opinion? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with this film. Here is the guidelines from WPfilm:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films
 * Though I'm not sure how helpful they are.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

TZP FAC
Hey. My current FAC for No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) should be coming to a close this week. When it does, I'm gonna work a little on TZP's soundtrack section (per music guidelines, the reviews shouldn't be included in the soundtrack infobox template but instead in the prose) and then nominate it for FAC, if that is okay with you. Ω pho  is  19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly go ahead. And make whatever changes are needed to comply with Manual of Style (film). Also, please do leave a short note on my page when the FAC is in progress. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. You want to be a co-nominator, right? Ω  pho  is  04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it doesn't really matter to me. So long as it is nominated. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TZP
Hey, my other FAC is finished, so I can now put up TZP for FAC. That okay with you, or do you think there are any issues? Ω pho  is  21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article looks to be in great shape. Good job! Go ahead. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to be available for the next few weeks? Because I expect I will need your expertise on Bollywood articles when dealing with sourcing issues. Ω  pho  is  21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be in and out though if I know you will leave questions on my talk page, I'll try to talk a look. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll let you know when I put it up. Ω  pho  is  22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'll make it a point to check at least once a day. Thanks for taking this on. Such a wonderful film deserves to be an FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

TZP
Hey, are you going to be completely gone until 2011? I just nominated TZP for FA, and may need some assistance with claims of RS issues. If you are too busy, though, I can probably make do, though. :) Ω  pho  is  00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wish I could. I am suddenly swamped in RL for the next few months and only have time for an edit or two here or there. Perhaps write to some of the people I'd mentioned before who edit Bollywood film articles and see if they can help out. I did take a look at some of the comments, all look quite good. I'm sure with time the article can make it to FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thirty something listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thirty something. Since you had some involvement with the Thirty something redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'm essentially on break from major editing until next year. I'm fine with whatever you all decide to do. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par FA
Hey, TZP became an FA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dwai, Great news about TZP, good job! I'm pretty much away from the WP (except for minor edits here and there) until later in the year as RL has become hectic. Good to see you back at the WP! -Classicfilms (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative
We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Acalamari,
 * Thanks for the autopatrolled option! I appreciate it. I am officially on wikibreak for at least the next couple of months so I only check in every once and awhile. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 

Taare Zameen Par is a 2007 Bollywood drama film directed by Aamir Khan, written by Amole Gupte, and produced by Aamir Khan Productions. The film explores the life and imagination of eight-year-old Ishaan (Darsheel Safary). Although he excels in the arts, his poor academic performance leads his parents to send him to a boarding school. Ishaan's new art teacher (Aamir Khan) suspects that he is dyslexic, and helps him to overcome his disability. The film made its theatrical debut in India on 21 December 2007, and UTV Home Entertainment released a DVD for Indian audiences in 2008. Less than two years later Walt Disney Home Entertainment released an international edition DVD titled Like Stars on Earth, marking the first purchase of distribution rights for an Indian film by a global company. Taare Zameen Par has received several awards, including the Filmfare Best Film Award for 2008 and the 2008 National Film Award for Best Film on Family Welfare. It was India's official entry for the 2009 Academy Awards Best Foreign Film, and the film's failure to progress to the nominations short list sparked a debate about why no Indian film has ever won an Oscar. Media outlets made comparisons between Taare Zameen Par and the British drama Slumdog Millionaire, which won several Oscars that same year. (more...)

Congratulations
Hi. Just saw Taare Zameen Par on the main page. Congratulations! --rgpk (comment) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! I had no idea, just happened to log in today. Great! Hope more people see the film! -Classicfilms (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par
Hey, as one of the original editors for Taare Zameen Par, could you please give your opinion on the lead section discussion there? Thanks. Ω pho  is  15:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. In case you're not watching the talk page, I responded to your comment. Thanks again. Ω  pho  is  16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Placement of alternate titles
Hey, just wanted to let you know that the discussion regarding TZP's DVD title has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, in case you wanted to give any input regarding it (especially since it may impact future titles since the discussion is on the film project talk page). Thanks. Ω pho  is  00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I responded to Erik's long comment on the TZP talk page which is really the better place for this discussion. Erik is a long-time film editor and I would follow his judgement on this issue.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)