User talk:Dwaipayanc/Archive 39

Finally...
Have you seen the WP:RSN discussion? -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well yes great... I'm of course not going to use PB and BV. Only will the necessary links be used. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pôther Pãchali
That transcription follows the Romanization of Bengali, a phonemic transliteration of Standard Bengali. --SameerKhan (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the wikilinks for both pages (Romanization of Bengali, IPA). Let me know if there are any questions. --SameerKhan (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. The article is looking great so far; it's one of my favorite movies, so I'm glad to see someone working on the topic! --SameerKhan (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I am also targeting to expand a related article. GDibyendu (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have fixed some sentences of Plot. Also, it seems it was not clearly stated who Indir was. Another thing about John Huston's visit to India: since the movie (for which he was searching for locations) is linked, clarified that it was finally made in 1975. And removed one award as it seems to have been given to Aparajito. Will add it later to Aparajito page, once I am sure about the Danish Title. GDibyendu (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the years for both Kinema Junpo Award (1967) and Bodil Award (1969). IMDb supports both info and for the first award, could not cite original web as I cannot make head or tail of Japanese. Danish is still reabable and translate.google can help and IMDb supports anyway. GDibyendu (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed Reva Devi's name and character mainly because the plot does not talk about the character. I also removed new Cast section as Casting subsection was there. However, it may make sense as a subsection of Plot. I am not sure about that. Need to check for similar stuff in good articles on films. Hope you agree with this change.GDibyendu (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks OK for me. How about mentioning little bit about the actors in later life? BTW, there is not much sense for Subir Bannerjee and Chunibala Devi to have separate wikipages (Nothing to expand there: Subir never acted again, Chunibala died before movie-release). GDibyendu (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but isn't that what it is now? If possible see if separate paragraphs can be on separate events etc. Andrey Rublev Plot is something like that, though it is not exactly comparable as it had a lot of historical events. Pather Panchali does not have similar historical/geographical turns, but has a number of small events, which are like turns in the film. GDibyendu (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your sandbox. While it looks like another good approach, I would suggest clarifying it with peer reviewers whether this is what they are suggesting: change of approach. I though generally, reviewers think that it should be summarized little more (say by 100-150 words less) and that some detail can be ignored, so that generally readers do not think such details as sentimental or unnecessarily blown up etc. BTW, you must have noticed that new stubs have been added/expanded for Uma Dasgupta and Kanu Banerjee and Bansi Chandragupta. I am focusing on related articles now. Contentwise, I guess Pather Panchali has enough now. GDibyendu (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty readable now. Great job! GDibyendu (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you 100% sure that a film festival changed into a Shakespearean Theatre festival? The ref does not prove that. This link cited in Stratford Shakespeare festival clearly shows that the theatre festival was started in 1953 or so, and though it was also called Stratford fesival, it had nothing to do with films. So, wikilink is not correct unless you can prove it otherwise. GDibyendu (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was there in 1950s. It seems it got discontinued at some time and was revived in 1971, ref. How long it went on from then is not clear. GDibyendu (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That must be some kind of error, except the fact a Shakespeare Festival could have arranged shows on Hollywood films based on Shakespeare's works. Many such were made in 40s and 50s. But showing Pather Panchali in a Shakespeare Festival would have been meaningless by all means. There is another book which kind of tells what I was expecting that Stratford Film Festival later moved to Toronto. GDibyendu (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was just name, which was changed later. It had always shown opera etc. on Shakespeares works from 1953, as the first book shows. Also, the canadiantheatre.com article shows/says that. GDibyendu (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. My point was only about the wikilink. Thanks. We are on same page again. GDibyendu (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.


 * Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
 * Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
 * Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
 * Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team,  W ODU P bot  22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Bhadani the Robot
Bhadani the Robot. --Bhadani (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics
FYI. Inviting Thoughts --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 05:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
I know you have been asked this before but why don't you consider WP:RfA. You deserve to be an admin. I am willing to nominate you. Anyways, Why not? I am sure you ll get more than 150 supports. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pother Panchali
Yes, I noticed. In fact, sorry about this thingy I added before. Heh!

I'll see what I can do. I think the Plot section looks kind of odd, the way it is now. I'll bring up the first (and foremost?) concern I have about it right now, on the talk page. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to examine it later. I'm in the middle of sorting out a new GeoBot which potentially could double the size of wikipedia within a few months if approved  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

re:peer review
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) 14:41, 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)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Avichi Meiyappa Chettiar
Thank you for your valuable advice.:-) This is the filmography link for AVM.(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0577149/filmoyear) I' pretty tired having done most of the article. Also, I don't have much time on my hand. It would be nice if someone else fills in the Filmography section. As for Pather Panchali, I'll review the article and drop in with my comments in a short while- Ravichandar My coffee shop 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pather Panchali
Hi I've left a few comments. I've been honest. It needs a great deal of work, particularly on the structure of the plot and peacock words. I don't think it is ready for a GA yet, but with some work.... Greate to see you have been working on one of our core articles, woudl indeed be good to see an FA on it eventually but there is a long road ahead!!! Regards  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you please ?
... look into this addition to West Bengal? My removal of redundant info has been termed as "islamic bias" by this editor (somehow he seems quite familiar, but I'm probably wrong :) ). At least in your case, he'll not be able to play any religion card. --Ragib (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh!! Here he's at it again :( --Ragib (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a newbie. I have left him a caution of 3RR. - KNM Talk 21:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's a newbie, judging by his usage of wiki jargon. :( --Ragib (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Back
My problems remain but I am back. I don't know whether I can do regular work but I shall surely put in things sporadically. Thanks and regards. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gangtok
Hi Dwaipayan, I copyedited a few sections of the Gangtok article. Will try to do some more copyediting. But, once the content and referencing issues are fixed, it would be better to appeal to the League of Copyeditors. Finetooth from the league, for example, has helped me in the past with copyediting. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I heard you would not be so much active after June, true? -- gp pande «talk» 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a good find on Etymology. I think article fits FAC now. Let Nichalp have a look at it also. His inputs would be valuable. Yes, I will go through Pather Panchali. You are doing good job in Indian Cinema articles too. :-)
 * Nice to know you would be around, together we can make Nagpur FAC. User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 has started wikifying the article. -- gp pande  «talk» 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, will give it a shot. Will also have look at Pather Panchali too, when I find time. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyedits of the lead are done =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited the lead. I will be out of town from tomorrow till the 4th, so I would not get the chance to copyedit the full article. I believe we have saved the article from being delisted, although Kalimpong and Sikkim might be under scrutiny soon. Still, congratulations on saving the article. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some minor fixes to the article
Please recheck some of my edits to Pather Panchali — KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The nbsp; was added in place of the normal space tabs. Where the space was missing I didn't add any nbsp; . - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seem to busy? - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Raj Bhavan and Resident
Thanks. BTW, you guys are doing a very professional edit of the article! --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kazi Nazrul Islam
Hi Dwaipayanc - as you are a key contributor to this article, I would like to like to inform you of the changes I've made. Please don't take offense at the removal of data. My reasoning is this - speaking in context of the overall article, why risk removal of FA status. Its a subject on which there doesn't seem to be as many sources available. As a solution, I don't see why we can't just remove the non-essential sentences/facts without due citations - none of them seem critical or vital to the article. It won't diminish, as it doesn't seem people here can find any better literature. And is it worth risking the status of the overall article over those non-essential sentences? I don't think so. To be sure, I've left those alone which I felt were of some importance. Regards,  Vishnava talk  12:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
I thought there was no need to add that Sangharsh was based on The Silence of the Lambs, but if you already added that - it's fine. Thanks. Only is there one thing I think now, and comment I disagree with. The Filmfare awards and noms - I think the awards article is part of this very article, and adding 10-13 references of 10KB is a very baseless act. It's all perfectly referenced in the award article. I worked very hard to reference every possible award on there, and disagree with the view that it all should be referenced in the article. FAs like Jolie do not reference any of the aweards she won. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can you make a note to use a big green tick on sections of Giros opposes when they have been done. I find his comments extremely difficult to read and it is difficult to see progress is being made. Could you please add a tick to his points that have been addressed so we know what is left to do. Thanks  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all offended with your comments. I understand the matter. But size and pride are not the case here - the case is the matter; there are links to the awards she won - there are wikiarticles, and aprt from that - the List of Preity Zinta's Awards and Nominations article is considered to be part of this aritcle - it is linked only in this article - I have taken days to source them. There is no even one sourced award on Jolie's FA article, and even without that, we have to consider the fact that it is actually sourced. If there weren't any sources, I wouldn't oppose to source it - but that's quite strange. It's not pride, it's just that it isn't right. I turned to Sandy - let's see what she has to say about that. As of now, I've removed the refs from the filmography. Thanks for the help. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also thik that the matter is not making the reviewer agree. We have full right to disagree. A reviewer is by no means there to decide and what is not. Let's see what Sandy says. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it can be sourced differently (if that's the case) - something like - " " - ? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I strongly disagree. I don't care if this aritcle does not become an FA. In any case Girolamo will not change his oppose, he has by far reviewed only three sections + lead -- nothing else. Here I won't change my mind, and I have full right to raise my concerns. I can source all the awards to this. It is not the matter. And let me tell you it was not a pleasant watch seeing you undoing my edit with this "undid revision..." text. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It does hurt, yes - because it's an injustice. So many FAs, leave the Jolie article, take the Bette Davis one, leave Davis, take Vivien Leigh, you will never see this info sourced there. Because it's an Oscar, it's a big deal, it's an obvious fact. It shows the real problem - that Zinta is an Indian. If it was an Oscar, nobody would never question it. But it's a Filmfare, and nobody cares. There are Wiki links, there is a daughter article, yet it's considered to be false because there is no source.
 * It does hurt, yes - because I'd worked very hard to find sources for every possible award Zinta received, only to see how someone comes and strikes that as unsourced.
 * It does hurt, yes - because after hard work on this article, everyone comes with some trivial issues, and in doing so invalidates the article's possibility to become FA.
 * And I believe that my argumentative nature did help the article. If I hadn't stuck by my belief that BOI was reliable, it would never have been approved. I stood on my opinions and kept the RSN active, only then did Relata come and support that. I believe it's very valid here as well. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove both my and you message from the FAC. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please take heed of my requests and do something to indicate which points of Giro's have been addressed on the FAC. It will make it much clearer to anybody who makes the final decision on whether to promote it if it indicates that the points have been addressed. Thanks  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's OK. The only difference is that those article don't have any soucing way. The Zinta one does - it has a daughter article. Anyway, I would like to consult someone else to hear more opinions from Sandy and John to see what they think. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More... Dwai what would you say to these possibilities for the versatility part of Zinta. Either ""After the release of this film, Zinta was often recognised for her versatility as an actress. Critics attributed her characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, as to establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood". Or even "After the release of this film, critics recognized her versatility as an actress and attributed her roles in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke as contributing to new perception of a Hindi film heroine".

This way it implies that critics noted how her performances seem to mark a change in convention without stating "this was the case". This would seem less POV I think but it could do with some further rewording as both of these are still a little awkward. What do you think? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I tend to agree... I rather like Shahid's suggestion of "Following her portrayal of a range of characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, Zinta was often recognised for her versatility as an actress. Critics attributed her roles in these films as to establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood". That for me seems an improvement  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 17:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh really what do you think? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think often is good because it somehow makes it flow well. I've dropped wide because it's subjective. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please see the Jolie article. The main editor came after you. See his edit summary and the way he chose to do it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! One editor has added the IPL stuff to the lead. I have two concerns:
 * A) Is that important enough for the lead as of now?
 * B) Where and how it is written. It does not look good in the end of the introduction - I think there shouldn't be anything written after the Bharat Shah mention, and it belongs to the space of her other work description. So I thought of something like:
 * "In addition to movie acting, Zinta has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia, is a regular stage performer, and along with boyfriend Ness Wadia she is a co-owner of the Indian Premier League cricket team Kings XI Punjab."
 * Or:
 * "In addition to movie acting, Zinta has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia, and is a regular stage performer; along with boyfriend Ness Wadia she is a co-owner of the Indian Premier League cricket team Kings XI Punjab."
 * What do you think? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)