Talk:Lage Raho Munna Bhai/Archive 2

Good work

Good work guys, Lage Raho Munna Bhai, the first Indian film to become a FA. Congrats to all who have worked on the article and thanks for support. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, three cheers for Gandhigiri !--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Amartyabag!-Classicfilms 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my congratulations too. It's good to see Bollywood get some main page attention. Brutannica 01:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Style of Awards section

During both FAC's for this article, the format and style of the Awards section were both discussed in detail by other editors - resulting in the decision that the section would be formatted as a paragraph rather than as a list. As the article is now a Featured Article, it is important to maintain this formatting style. So when editing this section, please do not convert it into a list. -Classicfilms 13:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Awards again...

I think the awards section needs some work. During the first FAC, when the awards was a standard list, one of the comments suggested that we turn it into a paragraph-which we did. Now, however, since the article is somewhat long, and since the film has won many awards, I would like to propose the following:

a. Moving the awards to its own article (which is done, for example, with a listing of episodes for television programs).

b. In terms of format, I thought that this article did a nice job with the awards section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hudson#Awards_and_nominations

What does everyone think? -Classicfilms 02:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of creating a daughter article on the awards own/nominated for. However, I do not think a list is needed in the main article. Rather we can avoid mentioning all the categories in all the award ceremonies in this article. Sentences like, " The movie won several awards including the best movie in XX award, 2007" may suffice, given we have a daughter article listing the full awards detail. In fact the daughter article may be done in a list format.Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayan! Thanks for the response and sorry, I was not very clear in my post above - I didn't mean to imply that we should have a list in the main article - in fact, the two sentence introduction that is already there is enough. My thought was that all of the information should be moved to a new article and that the format could be similar to the section that I mention above. So, if that sounds like a good idea, I could take care of it. -Classicfilms 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new article as a list. It currently has the 2006 awards. I'll format the 2007 awards and add them. -Classicfilms 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to external site

I removed an external link (it's listed as reference #26 on the article page -- http://www.helium.com/tm/199266)that's been reverted with a request to begin a discussion here. The link was one of two citations for a minor fact, and the link led to a review by a non-notable author with only a passing reference about the fact it's sourcing. The review is on a website that doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Although Helium.com itself has an article again, that doesn't mean that its user-generated and non-edited articles are considered to be authoritative or major news articles. I looked for other Helium-based articles and found most of them removed. Not being rude with these comments; just trying to be brief and concise. So, now, tag, you're it -- why should we keep this link? :) Flowanda | Talk 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flowanda - fair enough and well argued. I asked for an explanation because I I didn't really understand why the reference was removed. However, now I do - you make strong arguments here for removing it.

Here is why we used it originally - it is the only online source which directly supported the allusion to Good Morning Vietnam with the following sentence: "as alluding to other famous works, e.g. the way Jhanvi says "Good morning Mumbai" is very similar to Robin Williams' call of "Good morning Vietnam". The other source (the one that was kept) only refers to Williams in a general way but not directly to this clear allusion to the film. For those who have seen both films, the allusion is obvious, but to not directly footnote it seemed to move towards original research. Since this allusion was a recurring motif in Lage Raho, it seemed important to mention the connection between the two films - and the reference you would like removed was the only one we could find which directly supports the text.

I should note that this is a featured article and that this reference passed the FAC - however, if you feel that the text is sufficiently supported without this source, go ahead and revert my revert. -Classicfilms 04:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sholay

Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised at this movie article maiking it as an FA. However, given that it's the only hindi movie article to become a FA, I am even more surprised that the Sholay article didn't do it first; that movie has had a far greater impact on the Indian movie industry --Amit 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the complement for this article :) Why don't you try to upgrade Sholay? It would be nice to see Sholay in FAC. A good source may be the book on the film by A Chopra. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll do that as soon as I have some time on my hands; I'm suppose to be on a wikibreak right now :-| Amit@Talk 10:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why all the hoopla?

I was kinda stunned to see this movie, at best a mediocre Bollywood tale about bleeding-heart goodness and benevolence (Sanjay Dutt in a role he can never emulate in real life), elevated to the status of an FA. The critical value of the film apart, as someone already pointed put there are other worthy candidates like Swades, Lagaan, Sarfarosh etc. which deserve equal, if not more, importance. But yeah I'm just cribbing. dirty but clean 13:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FA status is not solely based on importance of the subject. Of course there are other worthy candidates. Unfortunately, those are not of FA status. Please help them attain FA status by working on them. That will be great and more effective.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Actually, FA status is not AT ALL dependent on "importance". Tommy Stardust 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a completed task. Am I correct? -Classicfilms (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

English translation

I removed the English translation: "Carry On Munna Brother" as it was an awkward representation of the meaning and not sourced. There are many ways in which this title could be translated (a more figurative, but better translation would be "Go for it little brother" - but that also loses the double meaning of the term "Bhai"). We need to find a well sourced English version of this title. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)