Ok, I'll start adding the Bengali, more specifically the East Bengali ones ... (I'm co-creating them in Bengali wikipedia too). This is probably a bad way to co-ordinate :( --Ragib04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Kaziranga
No, I don't think we conflicted. My edit window was open for a long time so missed out on you inuse template. But since I had already finished with the history, I hope I didn't e/c you. =Nichalp«Talk»=04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just letting you know that I will be working on the Balurghat article over next few days. Since I have never done this before (working on an article about some place), I might need you to watch over my edits. :) --soum(0_o)01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. However, even if reputable sources are cited, an article cannot push a POV. Now, if that is actually the opinion of the person who gave that lecture, then please quote it and indicate that this is his opinion. Otherwise, the statement cannot stay. (Basically, just because somebody said it doesn't make it fact. If we treat opinions as fact, then we are violating NPOV.) --Hnsampat14:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you over-did the de-linking. Specifically, I take issue with the de-linking of the years in the History section, the de-linking of Hebrew language (under "Name", due to multiple uses of the term), the de-linking of every term in the first paragraph of "Capital of Israel", the de-linking of years under #Palestinian claims, Old City of Jerusalem in the Culture section, and many more. Essentially, I feel the de-linking was done under the impression that someone will be reading the article from start to finish and go paragraphs back to find a relevant link if they need one. It's understand to not link 1949 or Arab in two consecutive sentences, but I don't understand why the link to 1949 in one part of the article covers the entire article; once or twice per section (or once per sub-section) should not be a serious problem (see also WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?). About the dates, there is some debate, as WP:DATE#Partial dates notes, over whether years all by their lonesome should be linked. I have a feeling we're going to remain in different schools on that point, but some of the other de-links just don't seem necessary. -- tariqabjotu18:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am in a hurry (have to sleep). So will reply you later. I admit some of over delinkings (Hebrew language, many years in "History" I might have delinked some significant years). Talk to you later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I made a couple more changes after the previous post. Essentially, as I said earlier, I believe you de-linked too much. Items distant from each other could easily be linked more than once and it appeared as though a few other significant links were lost in your changes. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, however. -- tariqabjotu03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Ok, the years in "History" may be linked (as most of them are very old years, and probably significant). However, there are some links that should be de-linked. For example, Christianity, Judaism, Islam are common words. When they are once linked in the "lead", IMO they need not be linked anymore. You are correct in observing "Essentially, I feel the de-linking was done under the impression that someone will be reading the article from start to finish and go paragraphs back to find a relevant link if they need one" So I feel East and West Jerusalem, Old City etc need not be linked multiple times in the article. Common words like "capital", "suburb" don't need to be linked.
Anyway, let the article be what it is as of now. let's see what happens in the FAC. What worries me is the lack of response in the FAC. Support, Object or Comment - whatever it may be, responses are needed, so that the article can be bettered. Have you advertised in the relevant wikiprojects and portals? (for example, Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am surprised by the lack of response. Seven days ago, I advertised the FAC on the pages for all of the WikiProjects noted on the talk page – WikiProject Judaism, Israel, Islam, Jewish history, Christianity, and Cities. By the way, my point in making the comment that you italicized was to emphasize that people usually do not read articles from start to finish. From WP:MOSLINK, A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. and However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate. -- tariqabjotu05:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reg the india quiz question..!!
Hi,
I'm sorry I never really noticed your message.. As I'd said, my net connection had been very poor lately, and I did not log in for the past few days..!! Managed to get a stable connection only since yesterday..
FYI, it was a fault in my modem.. :D :D
Prasad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prasad den (talk • contribs) 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
I am not very sure about what I have about University of Calcutta but I have still more information to add to Jagadish Chandra Bose. The two portals are eating away a lot of my time. Let me see if I can develop short cut methods of working or else I will have to give up Portal:India. Regards. -- P.K.Niyogi16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at Antorjal's page only today. It seems he has just quit. It is a big loss. He was such a good contributor. I have mostly been working on biographies of social reformers and 19th century people. I am new to biographies of scientists, but once I can make something out of Jagadish Chandra Bose, I intend to get on to Satyen Bose and Meghnad Saha. Mihir Sen was in very bad shape - I have set it right. All the universities in West Bengal need some brushing up. Even Viswa Bharati is in bad shape but get on with University of Calcutta first. Then I have had Durgapur Steel Plant and Bardhaman District on my wish list for a long time but I am slipping all the time. Rabindra Sangeet needs brushing up - you can see the links I have for Raygunakar, you may get some interesting information. Regards. -- P.K.Niyogi17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a bit unfortunate I guess although the article comes first, not my vanity, so that's not a problem. Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with an 80k FA, so I'm likely biased. In any case, it's better than having to argue with a person who only edits one article....Ngo Dinh Diem and WP:RFARB and Brett Lee.....those types of guys always have a massive POV and break all teh rules of encyclopedia writing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. For the present, I would like to concentrate on my contributions. Maybe, in future I can think of it. However, I do look forward to your going ahead for it. -- P.K.Niyogi02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "Update: Lage Raho..." response on my talk page. 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. And certainly, I'm happy to respond on your talk page (though I'm going to keep a copy on my talk page as well). Thanks for your help and feedback. -Classicfilms18:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: Plot. 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. -Classicfilms15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? -Classicfilms21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing Lage Raho...
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?-Classicfilms15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. -Classicfilms15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). -Classicfilms20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lage Raho... interesting
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. -Classicfilms07:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. The only other material I removed from this older 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. -Classicfilms12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I took away the block quote marks, though I think the quotation itself helps. If the intro needs a further re-write to conform to the rules, please go ahead and do it. -Classicfilms16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numerology - Batuk Maharaj (the astrologer) used this method to decide it (I believe it is discussed in the final scene with with Batuk Maharaj - Circuit makes a comment to Munna about this). -Classicfilms21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAC looks great - as for future FACs, maybe I'll leave that to other editors who contribute to the Bollywood wikiprojects. -Classicfilms21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? -Classicfilms15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Classicfilms13:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - no, I must insist that Bakasuprman must be indefinitely blocked. So many editors have expended so much energy into counseling him to leave Kelkar's cotails, but to no avail. Neither was the persistent incivility, personal attacks and confrontational behavior altered. The evidence I have directly implicates Baka. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
