Knowledge (XXG) talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 29

2648:

Amarrg gave me only one negative review for KANK which criticised her for having a little role (...??), while I gave him some reviews that say that she gives her best. Plus, she was nominated for her performance. If an actor receives a nomination, so the majority opinion is definitely positive without even looking at the reviews, and it will be stupid to give a negative review for a role she was was nominated for. Because, there will always be some critic who'll criticise her, but the majority opinion is the only thing that matters, and this nomination perfectly reflects the majority opinion/the general reception. I didn't understand what you mean by that, "Instead, how about we attach those five(?) reviews as cites after the film". First of all, in our current status, we have unfortunately no more than 6-7 reviews for each film, cause we use only newspapers. I have a good analysis, and if someone questions the neutrality of the article, we can refer him to that. It is yet to be completed.

1313:. The critic in question may or may not have been making an objective assessment of the film or the actor/actress in question. He may be biased in his opinion as well. Moreover, nowadays I see that the reviews are flashed on web pages like IndiaFm (which are used as RS in articles) within a day or two after the film's release, and I have to question whether sufficient research has been undertaken before publishing that review. Coming to the point, the opinion of the critic, may not be the majority opinion. I want to question whether we should be mentioning critic's opinions in any Bollywood article, at all. The Knowledge (XXG) goal as I see, is to publish a factual account and a majority opinion in the articles. Are we doing the right thing, by mentioning a critic's opinion, which might just be his POV. I want to throw open the question: 708:

boxofficeindia.com, just like box office mojo's and IBOSnetwork's figures are almost the same. This is confusing me now since according to indiafm.com and BO india, Chak De has crossed 60 crores, but according to BO Mojo and IBOS it hasn't yet crossed 60 crores. Also, according to indiafm.com, Chak De has entered the "All-time Blockbuster" region by crossing 64 crores but according to BO India it has yet to cross the 64 crore mark. So we have totally 4 different sites (and I still doubt BO Mojo's reliability when it comes to international countries' domestic box office figures) with 4 different ways to make us think they're reliable but we're still back where we started!! For a long time I have been following BO India as if it's an official BO site. Anyway so many of these doubts in my mind, I hope someone can clarify them. Thanks, Maaz.

2657:

newspapers. Even every review on Jolie's page appears to be isolated. No one can know if it's really the majority opinion, and nobody cares. Only here, people find the best way. One editor tried so hard to find negative reviews to invalidate the reviews on the page. Now, after I gave him five positive for each, he doesn't even think to come here and reply. And I'm sure he saw this, but he doesn't care. Wouldn't you be offended in such situation? I'm generally happy with this discussion, because all the possible concerns re reviews are raised here, and we can shut anybody's mouth in the future. Now I think there is nothing else to add; this discussion was a tiring thing. I'll let you know when the analysis is completed. Thanks xC. Regards,

2338:. I did not see the status of teh article right now. My opinion, it will bloat the readable article size if we go on to incorporate all the quotations. Rather, you can say the result (as listed in teh talk page of Prity Zinta), followed by citations of all the reviews. Also, at one or two instances, use a quotation (that will bring variety in the prose). And preferably, the quotation should be from a more redily recognizable source such as BBC. One more point to add variety, quote one positive and one negative quotes. Say, for example, in film A, she was praised as, "......". However, XYZ reviewed her next film B as, '......" 1434:

be avoided. The thing is the article needs to not only examine the actors career but look at how they are perceived professionally and citing critics is the best way to do this. I agree though that if you are citing a critic he must have some claim of notability. E.g Fred Davis of the New York Times, or film critic Rahul Gupta of the Times of India etc. You need to be careful with who you cite and whether this can be universally accpeted as a valid argument. The problem over many of the Bollywood articles such as Preity Zinta lies with different perceptions of what is a reliable source and what a reliable critic is.

2208:. In fact, there are no policies against reviews. For the opposite, it is very well recommended in order to keep neutrality. Yes! Because presenting opinion of critics is better than saying that the actor was brilliant in this or another film. Amarrg's problem was the majority opinion, and I absolutely agree that a critic comment must represent the majority opinion. The result is that the majority opinion (the general reception) is clear in each of these examples of his, so there is no problem presenting positive reviews. As said, see below. 2583:

received, with a positive review attached to it. Amarrg had shown us one "negative" review for KANK (which says that she has a small role LOL), claiming that the article misrepresents the majority opinion, and she was actually not praised. In demand, I presented him 5 additional reviews, each of which are... positive! Which clearly shows that the majority opinion is positive, and the review represents the general reception fairly so there's no bias. That's what Amarrg was skeptical about, if every review represents the

723:

verdicts and general numbers. You won't find in any of these sites that Chak De was a flop, or average, or semi-hit. Every site clearly says that it's crossed the blockbuster verdict. Like yourself, we, the editors on Bollywood related articles, have always used this site as a source. It is very well written, and very active as well, updating itself every week or even 2-3 days. I won't give up, just because one editor or two find it unreliable for no clear reason. Regards,

31: 961:विकिपीडीया OR विकिपीडिया OR विकीपीडीआ OR विकीपीडिआ OR विकीपीडीया OR वीकीपीडिया OR वीकीपीडीआ OR वीकीपीडिआ OR वीकीपीडीया OR वीकीपीडिया OR वीकीपीडिया OR वीकिपीडीआ OR वीकिपीडिआ OR वीकिपीडीया OR वीकिपीडिया OR विकिपिडीआ OR विकिपिडिआ OR विकिपिडीया OR विकिपिडिया OR विकीपिडीआ OR विकीपिडिआ OR विकीपिडीया OR वीकीपिडिया OR वीकीपिडीआ OR वीकीपिडिआ OR वीकीपिडीया OR वीकीपिडिया OR वीकीपिडिया OR वीकिपिडीआ OR वीकिपिडिआ OR वीकिपिडीया OR वीकिपिडिया 1633:, "...where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." So, in this particular instance, both reviews should be cited. Indeed, in this case, the quotation can be removed, and written in a prose form, such as, "Zinta played....her performance, although not much meaty, was well-received", or, something like that. This should be followed by the citations of both teh reviews. 665:

still mentioned, and it's used as a "source", again, as a "source" for these RSes. So I don't find a reason to invalidate it on Knowledge (XXG), just because one user has problems with it. And the fact that you direct me to policies doesn't impress me too much, how much more so when you link the word "reliable" to WP:Redirect... Re creating, I can easily create one, and I'll do that later.

1655:

NPOV to give the most widely reported/respected view, which would probably be that of the "biggest name" critic. If that critic said, "great face, great bod, no talent", fine, include it, even if it were that critical. Otherwise, I would guess, if there is a "most prominent" critic out there, that person's review, positive or negative, would probably be the best one to include.

2079:, after little discussion. I believe "Mahatma Gandhi" was correct, since it's the most widely used. The admin who changed the article title thinks other policies apply. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but since most of the editors there (four) don't seem to have much experience with India-related articles, it would be helpful to hear from some with experience. Go to 2616:

kicking screaming and fighting in true Knowledge (XXG) style, and it takes six months to resolve the problem. Instead, how about we attach those five(?) reviews as cites after the film, wherever we are saying it is a positive majority opinion. So that every reader and editor can see clearly that it was the majority opinion we have written.

1003:, where you can see the route of the trains on the right. Somehow I like this, since it explains visually all stoppages, distances, train changeover points, bridge crossings (you can see this for Cascades, where they have mentioned the Steel Bridge crossing on the map), alternate routes and state border crossings. 1751:? Look: "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta." I didn't add it initially because it's unfair to Gracy. mm and she also received several nominations for her performance, so shouldn't we introduce that in a good light? One moment. I have more. 223:

AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, LACK OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE."

1433:

Critics views do offer an insight into professional opinion of the films and are very useful in identifying response to somebody's acting and perceptions of it. However even with the most professional of critics any review is likely to be subjective so I think too much reliance on critic views should

844:

This is to bring into notice about a project developed to help Knowledge (XXG) in Indian Editions. Even before launching the project, considering the importance of the same DD NEWS (the official news channel of Government of India) did a story about the project and a recorded version is available at

503:

No. Of course not in a single day. But if your website continue to provide reliable information for some time (and your material is used in other reliable places like websites and newspapers) then your reliability would increase. The problem with several website (especially Indian ones) are that they

435:

Their disclaimer says, "Though best efforts have been taken to provide accurate reports and figure charts, the scale of IBOS project and lack of absolute uniformity in trade outlets renders it important to note that all information and data provided on IBOS is provided 'as is' without any explicit or

2639:

I'm not concerned by people who will come and complain. I have already done a good analysis of films Amarrg was skeptical about. Amarrg had presented us only ONE negative review (and believe me there is only one for each), and I gave him five in demand. Plus, she was nominated for some of the films,

2567:

Thank you so much for the comments. No that's not about that xC. By saying "majority opinion" we don't mean all the reviews on this article, but all the reviews for every single performance. You're right in the matter that we don't have to include both good and bad reviews for every film. That's why

2349:

In general, Preity Zinta has got more positive reviews than negative (this I am telling not from a biased view, but from the weak memories of several reviews that I read over the years). So, it is likely that the general tone of the article will automatically be more tilted towards positive reviews.

2047:

This is one of the most bigoted articles I've come across in Knowledge (XXG). I dont think it was even worthy of being here (due to blatant communalism,anti-Hindu rhetoric,etc) until I modified it to make it look readable on November 30, 2007. Still, I dunno who the hell could give such an article a

222:

The disclaimer is pretty generic; indiatimes "terms and conditions" says, " All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision"; rediff.com disclaimer says, "REDIFF .COM

2647:

As for your question. I dunno what's the problem. If we have a majority opinion, so we have. We are not writing in the article, "the majority opinion was..."; we are writing, "the actor was praised. One critic wrote:'...'" or something like this. But it also depends on what kind of reviews we have.

2607:

How do we find out majority opinion? Make a votes tally? because if we don't, there will always be some editor or the other who can find a source saying something contrary to the majority opinion. So what do we do here? Make a list of 15(5?10?) reviews and then write "Good/Bad/Neutral" next to each

2582:

The case is that Amarrg questioned the neutrality of the article (and he has full right to do so), meaning, if every review for every single performance of Zinta represents the majority opinion (general reception). For example, The KANK paragraph on the article states that her performance was well

1654:

I wish I knew more about the subject to say which is the more "standard" review, but I don't. Personally, I think the review which best reflects the consensus of critics is probably the better one to include, if there is a clear, definite consensus. If there isn't, then it might be best in terms of

1561:

Again, both Rediff and Indiafm are used as RS in the article, and they give contradicting reviews like the above. Again, which to include and which not. From the above two examples, it is not difficult to see why a particular review was chosen over the other and included in the article. I will have

1122:

available for viewing. The image is displayed with the notice "Information presented on this page is open for copying and reproduction. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits to NIOImage Library is requested.". Is that compliant with cc-by-sa? Can we upload pics to wikipedia/commons directly

1017:

Some stations have stoppages only on certain days. Eg: Divine Nagar Halt in Kerala. I am a railfan myself, and have noticed from the timetable that most trains seem to stop only on certain days. I don't have statistics to back me up on how much trains do so, but I can get you those if you want. How

896:

Hello Aasisvinayak. Welcome to wikipedia! Congratulations to you on the outstanding achievements mentioned in the video. Looking forward to your contributions here. Regarding the search function, non-English wikipedias already accept text in other languages directly. Please try typing in the search

420:

This website is relatively transparent about their way of working. They are telling, "IBOS is India's first online news service geared towards providing news focusing on the business of cinema and related media metrics. Founded in 2002, IBOS promotes systematic reporting of comprehensive as well as

226:

So, disclaimer-wise, bollyvista is comparable to rediff and indiatimes. And it is not a fan-managed website. Yes, it is smaller in size than ToI or rediff. And it is not as widely read/consulted as indiafm. So, what may be it's reliabilty??? My opinion, it is reliable for non-exceptional claims, if

2715:

As for the "", I think it's a big trouble adding 5 references after each claim, it takes a lot of place. I'll think of some idea citing that. Or better, in an article, when there is a review, it oviously represents the majority critics' opinion, so my suggestion is to leave it with the review+ref,

2380:

For example, Amarrg presented one negative review for KANK, but most of the reviews for her performance in KANK have been positive (only one was negative, and that's too says only that she had a little role, nothing is mentioned regarding her acting performance). Therefore, the reviews for KANK on

1973:

Amarrg, what are you trying to prove here? It's ovious that you were working very hard to find negative reviews. Her performances earned her many nominations and awards, so what exctaly are you trying to say? See Armaan, you gave me one review which criticises her, but why don'y you look with more

707:

it says that Chak De India has grossed over $ 13,672,145. Multiply that by 39.295 and you get Rs. 53,72,46,937. According to IBOSnetwork, Chak De's Raw Net Collection is Rs. 53,72,46,935. So, are we supposed to believe that this is the right figure? Another site, indiafm.com has lot in common with

2656:

article, "The Saturday Evening Post wrote, 'she is not only beautiful, but she bubbles with charm', and compared her to Constance Bennett and Olive Borden." - it is taken from some book of Davis. Now, How can we know that this review represents the majority opinion? America of the 30s was full of

2249:

The refs do NOT give contradicting reviews. Preity Zinta is described as the actress with the meatiest role. And indiaFM only supports the claim by saying "Between Rani and Preity, it is difficult to choose who's the better performer". Rani was the leading and Preity is described as equally good,

2211:

So basically, there was only an honest attempt of one editor to find the worst reviews for the mentioned roles, and try to portray the article as not neutral. Because, overall, all the reviews express exactly what the article states. Amarrg, I really respect you and your views, but these examples

1842:

Amarrg, it's obvious that you're trying to find criticisms, but one moment, you can't show us two reviews with diffrences. Initially, when I was adding reviews, I was going through all of them and making conclusions. One moment. You have one ciriticism for KANK, while the other Rediff and indiaFM

1636:

So, for all the other quotations of critics used, let's try to find out if there does exist any conflicting review. If there are conflicting notable reviews (not blogs etc), that can be incorporated. So, effectively, this would necessitate finding out reviews of those films in ToI, Hindu, Rediff,

1452:

Right. Just to note, Preity Zinta's article was completely cleaned up and improved in terms of neutrality and reliable sources. The reviews come from reliability of sources. All of them. Plus, in this particular article there is no much reliance on critic views, as many films are not mentioned at

960:

Terms I want to serch at one go at google:विकिपेडीआ OR विकिपेडिआ OR विकिपेडीया OR विकिपेडिया OR विकीपेडीआ OR विकीपेडिआ OR विकीपेडीया OR वीकीपेडिया OR वीकीपेडीआ OR वीकीपेडिआ OR वीकीपेडीया OR वीकीपेडिया OR वीकीपेडिया OR वीकिपेडीआ OR वीकिपेडिआ OR वीकिपेडीया OR वीकिपेडिया OR विकिपीडीआ OR विकिपीडिआ OR

664:

have some problems with this site is your own problem, not mine. It's very difficult to find a site which cites a comprehensive info about consistent box office collections, like BOI does. Now I don't care in which frequency it's mentioned in RSes, but it's mentioned. It can hurt you, but... it's

250:

In its terms of service, it has similar disclaimers,disclaiming inaccuracies etc. So, it seems to be not a fan-managed site. However, on checking a few articles, most of them seemed to be written by someone named "Abid". Also, no formal statement on office or stuffs have been made. So, my view on

1978:

reviews for this film from reputable sources (BBC and Variety), which clearly state that she is superb. She was nominated for this role. So what do you want? It's obvious that there will always be someone who'll be keen to criticise her. She is not perfect. But, now, particularly Armaan, we have

1389:

I know what this policy means. I'm talking about high-profile FAs, and yes, they are taken into account and should use a role model for every possible article on Knowledge (XXG), when the decision to remove all the reviews from these FAs, we'll remove it collectively. On the other hand, there is

722:

Figurefour, you're right and you're not the only one. I'm with you!:) Many editors on Knowledge (XXG) use BO India here. The fact is that it's very difficult to follow on precise numbers everywhere. What we do get is that all these four sites are reliable and very close to each other in terms of

510:

So, that is what I am asking. How to evaluate the "credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context"? I thought their disclaimers, transparency of working, physical presence of the publisher etc may be taken into account. Do you suggest anything more so that

2615:

Lastly, how do we indicate our research about her reviews in the article? Let me explain what I mean. If we have ten reviews, and three were negative, that makes our majority review positive. Two months later some bright spark comes along who disagrees with having a positive review. We starting

2578:

The case is that there will always be some exceptional critic who'll disagree with the rest critics. Meaning, if all critics think that an actor is excellent, and only one thinks that he is dreadful, so we don't have to include his opinion, because the majority opinion is positive. The majority

2417:

bring up very strong points regarding the reviews. Both the users are right in their own way. However, I agree with what User Dwaipayan has to say. I feel that for films where the actor has received good and bad reviews from critics, we should include both of them to balance the article and not

2376:

reception for her performance for these particular roles. Meaning, that we don't show only one side of the reception, but the general reception, I repeat, the majority opinion. If the result indicates that she was generally praised, so the reviews which you see on the article are valid and they

518:

says, "With regard to popular culture articles, they may be the best or only source but should still be treated with care, especially with regard to assessing a neutral point of view". The data for which ibos or boxofficeindia are being used, is usually the verdict in box office. In most cases,

2574:

What I try to explain is that if there are for example only five reviews for an actor's performance in a particular film, with four of them being positive reviews and one being negative, so the majority opinion is obviously and definitely positive. Therefore, we have to add one of the positive

2688:

So we will take 5 to 10 reviews per film and note good/bad/neutral on the talk page. That gives us the majority view, which we will use in the article. To make it clear that we have used the majority, we put it something like "and she recieved a positive review from the critics overall" where

2212:

simply do not support your claims. Plus, I gave you more reviews than you did. For each film, you found one negative review to disprove that she was well recieved. On the other hand, I gave you more than one review and even explanations to back the claim that she was well received. So lastly,

218:

Ok. Bollyvista—"About us" says, "Through years of hard work, Bollyvista.com has been able to assemble a syndicate of reporters and dedicated technical staff to bring the best of Bollywood to its viewers around the world." So it is not a fan-managed site. It has proper staffs, and offices etc.

2418:

question its neutrality. If the actor recieved all positive reviews or all negative reviews than we just include only 1 of them. Not all the reviews should be mentioned, as there are tonnes of them, but as what Dwaipayan said, add a negative quote after a positive one to strike a balance. --

219:

Disclaimer says, "Bollyvista.com expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation: (a) Any warranties as to the availability, accuracy, completeness or content of information, products or services that are part of the Bollyvista.com web site..."

1704:

Will the lead editors, be kind enough to explain, how come they ignored one review over the other (the ones I have shown above)? Huh, so much for the brouhaha they created when the article failed the FAR. Does the RS become an RS in some cases and a non-RS in others. I am tempted to add a

543:

I've already proved its reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence to this or another site being reliable, and looked for it in different RSes. And I've found it! See please Indiatimes and ToI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to

2575:

reviews and that's the end of the story. On the other hand, if we have three positive reviews and three negative reviews so there is no majority opinion at all and we must add that the reviews are mixed, introducing both parts. The same implies if the majority opinion is negative.

2640:

which supports the fact that the majority opinion is positive. You say: "So what do we do here? Make a list of 15(5?10?) reviews and then write "Good/Bad/Neutral" next to each and total them?" - yes xC, to shut some mouths and prevent them from talking to much, that's what I did.

640:

Dont make it sound like they're using boindia the same way they use Reuters. boindia is no reuters. Reuters would be notable and RS even on its own. They dont need to piggyback or backdoor on the weight of less than a handful of throwaway mentions in RSes. boindia isnt even

2541:(Unfortunately) she has had more positive reviews in her career than bad ones, so an unbiased review/weighted average of her reviews give the same end result. A zebra stripe method (taking the second option to its logical extreme) simply messes up what were her actual results. 2611:

How we do we know which critics are worth listening to? I mean, its not like we can sit and count votes of every random critic on every random blog. So then we need to have a list of critics whose past work qualifies them as "reliable critics". (WP:RC lol) We can't just count

2384:

What I tried to explain with the above analysis (which is more detailed on the talk page) is that the reviews on the article don't show only one side of the reception, but they represent the general reception (the majority opinion, as says Amarrg) for these particular roles.

2544:

The problem as I see it is that shes had a very successful run from 2003-2006, which means the majority reviews reflect that, giving it a biased look. So how about leaving those in to reflect the majority opinion? Its the truth so we can't really do anything about it.

2512:

For every film where she was praised by the majority of (only RS noted) sources, we include a negative cite as well. For every film which was not recieved very well we include a positive review as well. So every film will have positive and negative reviews of the same

2527:

Or, we cite alternate negative-postive reviews to force the article to be balanced. Even if we ignore the fact that the recent few movies have had a more or less positive response, the article as a whole will have her film reviews like zebra stripes, one positive one

2748:

I had suggested "" so that people (esp. people who criticise the neutrality) can see that it is the majority view we are giving. Somehow I don't think that we should have a seperate analysis page. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, we aren't a box office analysis

2651:

And lastly, I think it's becoming tiresome that everybody makes such a big deal for these reviews. There is no policy against that. All the FAs use reviews. And this big deal comes for the first time here. That's just annoying. If we go through my favorite actress

1410:. I think, it's better to say, "one critic wrote, '...'" rather than, "she was terrific"... And again, I can't see a difference between Hollywood and Bollywood in this case. It's a very well known and recognised way to write BLP articles on actors. Regards, 867:

We can offer customized search boxes for Knowledge (XXG) pages for Indian readers to search in the respective languages and they enter words in the respective Indian language itself. The users can enter words directly in the respective languages and search.

227:

properly considered along with the context (just like any other media reliable source, where context should be taken into consideration while deciding reliability). It seems to be "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Comments?--

1879:

You may say whatever you want. From my examples, it is very clear that only reviews that praised her got a place in the article. Four examples are sufficient. Apart from that, the examples also raise a big question on the reliability of these reviews. --

2548:

The earlier films can have the double review/zebra review, for those we can put in whatever is suggested above. Apologies if I've interpreted the suggestions wrong, I really couldn't figure out exactly what was meant, so I've written what I got from it.

2346:. So, shahid, my suggestion would be to decrease the number of quotes, providing citation links to as many reviews as possible, and incorporate some negative quotes just after a positive quote (this technique will go on to show an apparent balance). 1539:

Between Rani and Preity, it is difficult to choose who's the better performer. Both have been given equal footage (length-wise) and importance. Both are incredibly competent in the respective roles, although Preity does go overboard in the initial

2316:

So, she was definitely well received for her performances in all these films. Every actor faces criticism. You can do nothing with that. But majority of the reviews for each film are favourable, and some of them were just misinterpreted. Regards,

1999:

The article has criticisms for Zinta: Lakshya, JBJ, Jaanemann, KKPK. I did a strong check on the net, and other films with positive reviews are strongly positive everywhere in other RSes. As for the ones you have mentioned, see next section.

916:

1.Requires much loading of files . You can check this by entering any word in text box before the page is fully loaded. 2. Give support only to very limited number languages in India. For example there is no support for tamil version -

246:

This is a website from INDOlink , which "...is the first Ethnic portal serving Asian-Indians worldwide since 1995. INDOlink is a US Corporation, located in San Ramon, California - with satellite offices in New York, and Bombay, India".

2643:

Critic is reliable if the site is reliable. The critic represents the site and the site represents the critic. I'm now taking reviews only from newspapers (The Hindu, ToI, The Tribune, Express India), BBC, Rediff, indiaFM, IBNlive -

1758:? "Most colorful perf, however, is from Zinta who, though playing an archetypal bad sort, manages to make the self-obsessed Soniya an almost sympathetic character through the sheer vivaciousness of her part-child, part-vamp playing." 1335:

articles? There is no difference between Bollywood and Hollywood. We are talking about actors in general. All the FAs on Knowledge (XXG) about actors cite reviews. We are not an exception, so my opinion is that it's good. Regards,

1713:

in the article with the alternate ones I have shown above, lo and behold, Miss PZ after all, is not as much as a good actress as the article now claims her to be. How easy it is to choose the right sources to push one's POV.. --

2377:

represent the general reception. Therefore, they can definitely remain there how they are right now. I mean, if the result is that she's praised and it's the majority opinion, we had full right adding these positive reviews.

1687:

as non-RSes. Apart from that, Zinta was nominated for her role. If you see the user reviews on IMDb (and don't tell me "what?" that just to note), you will get that she was described by many as the show stealer of the film.

2465:

mixed, but if the general reception/majority opinion is positive so there's no problem with adding a positive review. In other words, the page is very well written and there is no problem with its current career section.

604:

Being cited by another RS as a source proves the notability of boxofficeindia, and is one step towars proving its reliability. But whether it is RS also depends on its editorial oversight, scrutiny etc (as explained in

1488:

Zinta played the role of Sufiya Parvez, a TV reporter and Aaltaf's childhood love; her performance was well received. The Hindu wrote, "Preity Zinta is her usual cherubic self and lends colour to the otherwise serious

1238:

isnt on Wiki much these days to manage the portal. Can you please list the articles that need to be added to the portal (either here or on my talk page)? I'll try to update it myself. Ideally, they should be listed at

2203:

Amarrg made his work very easy. He looked for only one negative review for each film (where it was accessible) and left the thread. But as he says, we're here to present the majority opinion. And the majority opinion

2253:

I dunno if Planet Bollywood is concedered to be reliable, but to show that it is the majority opinion, see what it writes "she performs the gradual transformation from greedy slut to maternal human being very, very

623:

The case is, if strong RSes (newspapers) can use it as a source, Why can't Knowledge (XXG)? It is clearly an RS. IMO, it's not only a notability. Now, if we have to go further, we have to contact the site. Regards,

2276:

There are four reviews. One review says that she has a little role. The other three praise her very much. BBC says that she's given her best; indiaFM says that she is terrific; Rediff says that she overshadows SRK

2341:

Amar is telling that only positive quotes have been used. This is not uncommon provided the lead editors and I (a mere copyeditor) may have had some subconcious bias. I suffered from a similar bias when improving

1923:

Oh no!! What about my reviews. Two reviews for Armaan saying that she is brilliant. Another one From BBC on KANK saying that she gived her best. Plus she was nominated for these particular films... Response???

376:

clearly state about the eponymous private company, and their office, and their strving towards accuracy. It is not a blog/fan site, with considerable transparency about their way of working and the content.--

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 519:

verdicts are not really very debatable (except borderline cases). For accuracy of data, we can double check with available data in IMDb, which has gained a stature of reliable source now. Any comments? --

765:

article talk page contains a controversy over the proper title, whether it should be Veeramanidasan or Veeramani Dasan. It also needs substantial cleanup and some references to demonstrate notability.

1843:

praise her. And she was nominated, which again means that we should write that she was well received. When an actor is nominated, it's obvious that we will write that his performance was well recieved.

1010:. Most of our train articles just list the origin/destination stations, and stoppages along the route. They also list which loco pulls the train. Adding these would make the article much more readable. 871:

Please let us know if you need any clarification or help in implementation. You can find the contact page in our site for the same.If interested we can launch it extensively and include all the pages.

2048:'B' rating and that too to an article which was unreferenced (the references were added later and are not more than 3 days old). I guess the article needs to be re-evaluated and re-written.Thanx - 1553:

Preity Zinta, who clearly has the meatiest part of all, makes the best of it. Her transformation from the cocky and unabashed prostitute to a sensitive and warm person is amazingly believable.

2535:

Does this seem like such a good idea? Ignoring the majority view in an odd attempt to impose WP:NPOV? Its pretty obvious her career is on an upward swing with a majority of positive reviews.

1940:

I rest my case. I have said enough. If you understand what I have mentioned above, you would know that the article needs drastic changes. If you do not understand, I am helpless.. Thanks --

1508:

reviews should get an inclusion in the article? I would like to have an answer to this. This is just an example. There would be other similar examples as well. Will try to find them. --

146:

that could benefit from the perspective of Indian Wikipedians. While Osho has become part of India's mainstream, in the United States he still does not get a fair hearing, IMO. --

47: 17: 1032:

Some trains take entirely different routes on different days. Also, some trains have totally different destinations. But I guess, we can handle these like what has been done for

2692:

Lastly, you're right, on the Bollywood pages, people are more concerned with breaking down rather than building up. Thats why only Satyajit Ray gets a FA class article. Sad...

547: 174: 1863:- "Preity Zinta too gives her best. Watching her in the scene where she confronts Rani during the wedding reception makes you realise how excellent she is as an actress." 266:

So, my question is, can we use review from these site? It is an active site and every new released film receives a review there (not from this Avid, by different writers.

2571:

The case is, if there is a majority opinion (positive/negative), there is no violation of WP:NPOV in adding the majority opinion. Right? Anybody disagrees? I don't think.

1066:

IR follows the policy of maintaining two kinds of distances: chargeable distances and actual distances (Am not sure if those are the exact names used). Which do we show?

2381:

the page are definitely valid, and the current status of the KANK paragraph is unbiased, because she was praised by most critics, so it represents the general reception.

1772: 1683:

As for CCCC. Again, both the reviews are OK and say that she was great. Many reviews, like Apunkachoice and Planet Bollywood are very praising. Unfortunately, they are

1446: 1325: 286:

No, we should not be using for reviews too. Instead it would add more value to the article in terms of credibility, if we use well-accepted sources mentioned above. -

796:), we now have a new article page that is automatically updated by a bot. The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected India-related articles into 1453:

all. Only the notable films are mentioned there, and only a selective group of films (out of these notable films) are accompanied by critics' commentaries. Regards,

2257:

I have different sources which state that she was praised for her performance in the film, like MSN, saying that it was one of her milestones. I'll show later.

1055: 424:

Their data are "...sourced from reported Trade journals and IBOS System Projections", and , "...Overseas figures are gross box office (GBO) based on US EDI (

2568:

we have to make a good research and check the majority opinion, and then it will be clear what kind of review (positive/negative) we have to present. Right?

335:

I could not fine out any "about us" or 'disclaimers' in the website. It is hard to prove it's reliability, even if to support some non-exceptional claim.--

1640:

However, if the tone of the most of the review are similar, there is no need to cite all the reviews (though citing several reviews won't do any bad!)--

1194:- At my suggestion, the NIO has changed their license. But instead of a cc-by-sa license they preferred a restricted CC license. At least we tried. - 819:

explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Regards,

703:. Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, I trust. Now, if you would just check the figures for Chak De India according to box office mojo as mentioned 308: 507:

For example, indiafm.com is definitely a reliable site. But it does not have a wikipedia article, while many less traffick websites/ blogs do have.

1024:

One problem here is that times can often change. If we have them, then we need to constantly update them (or) we can have a disclaimer at the top.

574:

Being cited in another RS does not make the site a RS itself. For example, wikipedia is sometimes cited in the media, but wikipedia is not a RS.--

2372:

are not cited in order to add all the reviews. They are cited in order to show that the reviews on the page represent the majority opinion, the

123: 2387:

Meaning, the opinion of every critic cited on the page is the majority opinion, so we are not being biased by adding a positive review.

2752:

On the other hand, if having a seperate analysis page can stop these discussions about how her performances were, then I'm all for it.

1138:

Does it limit the "copying" to non-commercial? Also, without it explicitly saying so, can we assume it to be usable under CC-by-sa? --

980: 935: 887: 210:

talk page. Sorry for adding a lot of materials, but advices/comments are needed, this involves a whole lot of India-related articles.

1504:

Both Rediff and Hindu are introduced as RS in the article. Which of the reviews should you include and which you shouldn't? Or only

2716:

and if someone questions its neutrality, we'll refer him to the analysis page. What do you think? Thanks again and best regards,

1071: 1051: 2767: 2727: 2707: 2670: 2632: 2598: 2561: 2503: 2477: 2444: 2400: 2359: 2328: 2193: 2156: 2123: 2098: 2061: 2052: 2035: 2011: 1990: 1948: 1935: 1888: 1874: 1854: 1825: 1812:

And why was his review was published in Rediff. Because he sent it and Rediff published it. What are his credentials? No idea...

1722: 1699: 1659: 1649: 1614: 1574: 1516: 1464: 1421: 1401: 1376: 1347: 1284: 1249: 1229: 1203: 1181: 1167: 1147: 1132: 1108: 1075: 1059: 984: 955: 939: 907: 834: 775: 734: 717: 694: 676: 653: 635: 618: 599: 583: 568: 528: 490: 465: 448: 410: 385: 362: 344: 320: 290: 277: 260: 236: 196: 157: 129: 2109: 478:

disclaimer is true? If I open a website tomorrow, and will have its disclaimer identical to a well established, well accepted

191: 1810:

Arun Ganesh, 25, is currently based in Gurgaon, and works in the India branch of a telecommunications multinational company.

2689::x=review of some critic. So it'll be clear what the majority opinion was (and how it was decided) by looking at the cites. 1793:

Preity who? Zinta has barely a walk-on part in the film, her appearances pretty much restricted to the loud and showy songs

913:

Thanks for the response Yes I am aware of that . But it is very inferior version. The main defects (that I could find) are

1755: 1357: 588:

That's what Nichalp and Spartaz told me to do. It's not that it's just mentiones. It is used as a source of information.

2173: 2165: 1094: 1083: 1067: 1047: 816: 119: 2520:

I don't remember which editor(s) suggested this. Do you realize the size implications if we do this for the article?

2118: 2105: 439:

So, it is definitely not a blog/fansite, and has transparent way of working. IMO, it is reliable. Please comment.--

38: 115: 2237:

Both reviews say she was good. Reviews are not so distinct from each other. Nobody says that she has a big role.

1356:

I mentioned Bollywood since this is a forum related to India. About Hollywood and other FAs citing critics, see

251:

planetbollywood is, it is probably not reliable. It is definitely less transparent than bollyvista or indiafm.--

206:

Hi! Continuing with the discussion on Bollywood-related websites, I am copy-pasting a thread of discussion from

1808:

This is included in the article. And who wrote it. Some bloke called Arun Ganesh. And who is this Arun Ganesh?

808: 2280:

Plus, she was nominated for her performance in the film at various award ceremonies. Wasn't she well recieved?

1860: 1027:

Timings on the Konkan railway are different when the monsoon is on in those areas. How do we represent these?

1680:

Regarding Mission Kashmir, Both the reviews praise her, and yes, we chose the one which indicates it better.

1656: 1435: 1261: 2234:

The Hindu: "Preity Zinta is her usual cherubic self and lends colour to the otherwise serious proceedings."

2186: 1043: 968: 923: 875: 1247: 1104: 976: 931: 905: 883: 771: 2032: 368:

Indiantelevison.com seems to be reliable in the context in question, and for non-exceptional claims. The

2419: 2057:

I've re-evaluated the article and gave a 'Start' class rating which I feel is the most appropriate :-) -

1368:

critics is still a far way off to be objective and to be considered at face value. That's my opinion --

704: 2113: 1297:

This is a question that came to me when I entered into a discussion with another editor related to the

545: 2355: 2084: 2080: 1645: 1278: 1223: 1199: 1177: 1128: 713: 709: 614: 579: 524: 444: 381: 340: 316: 307:. My opinion is it will be better not to use this site, as it's RS-ness is debatable. You can ask in 256: 232: 126: 1172:

Ok. I'll write to them. Problem is that their contact us form isn't working. I'll keep on trying. -

2093: 650: 2587:. That's why I made the reseach. Thanks again friend, your comments are always valuable. Regards, 1240: 2761: 2701: 2626: 2555: 2190: 2153: 2058: 2049: 2041: 1007: 951: 812: 781: 185: 170: 152: 801: 797: 793: 789: 2150:

This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.

1604:

Preity Zinta comes up with another superb performance, essaying her part with utmost sincerity.

429: 142: 2389:

If someone questions its neutrality in the future, we'll refer him to the talk page. Regards,

2369: 2335: 2217: 1748: 1266: 1244: 1235: 1162: 1100: 972: 927: 902: 879: 827: 767: 689: 355: 163: 111: 1630: 454:

boxofficeindia is also not a fansite, and its disclaimer is almost identical to ibos' one.

2351: 2076: 1641: 1273: 1218: 1195: 1173: 1156:

assume anything. We need explicit correspondence from NIO which should be logged in ORTS.

1143: 1124: 1033: 1000: 996: 610: 575: 520: 440: 377: 373: 336: 312: 252: 228: 606: 515: 479: 304: 2142:

This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s quality standards

649:. Try writing an article about boindia and you will realize why it isnt even notable. 2088: 2072: 1599: 1586: 1534: 762: 755: 359: 1802:

Preity looks glamorous and in a couple of scenes, manages to overshadow King Khan too.

1406:

But just to note, I respect your opinion.:) Critics' reviews is a better way to state

646: 642: 421:

granular Industry trends. The publication is the premium source of industry tracking"

2757: 2717: 2697: 2660: 2622: 2588: 2551: 2493: 2467: 2390: 2318: 2001: 1980: 1925: 1864: 1844: 1762: 1689: 1494: 1454: 1411: 1391: 1337: 1021:

Do we need to show times of arrival/departure? The Amtrak articles don't have these.

947: 724: 666: 625: 589: 558: 455: 400: 267: 178: 147: 2214:

the following explanations prove that every critic's opinion is the majority opinion

557:, it is definitealy reliable. User:Spartz and User:Nichalp support me now. Regards, 1797: 1595: 1563: 1548: 1544: 1530: 1479: 1302: 1298: 1243:, but since they are already featured, that would be a pretty pointless exercise.-- 1214: 1157: 820: 684: 207: 2508:

I'm not sure I understand everything being suggested, so let me try to summarize-

2231:

Rediff: Preity Zinta has her moments, and thankfully she is NOT reduced to a prop.

1788: 177:

may benefit from your input. Please consider participating in that discussion. --

124:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Yuvraj_of_Patiala_.3E_Maharaja_Yadavindra_Singh

2189:. If we can't add some good cites to this article, IMHO it should be deleted. -- 114:

because it was originally written as a cricket article. Somebody has moved it to

2653: 1941: 1881: 1818: 1715: 1607: 1567: 1509: 1369: 1318: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1213:

It is seen that many of the new featured articles are not been dislayed in the

1139: 369: 303:

I cannot answer Shaid's question right away. I am not an expert in examining

2137: 2130: 2031:

could use some general cleanup. It has some cites, but could use more. --

1361: 425: 700: 1783:

I am loving this. This is hilarious. PZ's role in Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna:

1119: 1006:

I was just thinking why we cannot have such a map for Indian trains like

487: 396: 287: 2368:

Exactly. She's had more positive reviews during her career. The results

946:

I want to search following 51 words in google at one go how do I do it ?

1315:

Is it good or bad to mention a critic's opinion in a Bollywood article?

1473:

Let's take a simple example, that will prove what I am trying to say.

1097:

draws a bad picture of india and needs re-writing.. please comment..

311:, and, wait for other editors to express their views here. Regards.-- 2608:

and total them? I don't see any other transparent way of doing this.

2146:

This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2007)

965:

You can try mine... !!! But please see the notes before the search

2712:

Thanks xC, your help, suggetions and support are much appreciated.

2685:

You've taken care of all my concerns. Fantastic work, must say. :)

2028: 2020: 1118:

I came across their website recently and notice that they have an

1497:

is more sober and indicates that she hardly had a major to play.

549:. I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which. And it's 135: 699:

OK, now I have to say something about box office mojo and it's

436:

implicit guarantees to the user." Just like other disclaimers.

2311:

Best Villains at various award ceremonies. Wasn't she praised.

1979:

THREE positive reviews and one negative, so what can you say?

1123:

from this site without worrying about permission/licensing? -

683:

Getting stats on box office collections is not too difficult.

25: 1305:

and others on Bollywood that quote the opinion of so-called

430:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=about_variety_layout

1817:

And rediff.com is considered as RS. One big joke... LOL --

1739:

One moment, you can't show us two reviews with diffrences.

859: 2306:

state that she's superb and the most notable in this film.

553:

mentioned. If these reputable RSes use boxofficeindia.com

144: 898: 862: 856: 18:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

2140:

needs some serious cleanup. It is currently tagged with

848: 118:. IMHO, it is fine, except that it should be changed to 1254:

Ok, here are some of the articles which are not listed:

175:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mappila Malayalam

1591:

Preity's flair for spontaneity is missing in this act.

141:

There may be cross-cultural issues of perception here

811:

that will need to be tweaked per instructions at the

1390:

definitely no policy against using reviews. Thanks,

1289: 1521:Here's another one. This is regarding PZ's role in 504:

are much less used than many similar foreign sites.

122:. If you have any views on this, please comment at 2216:. See my explanations (for the complete list, see 2071:An editor recently changed the article title from 853:You can try some tools (for trying the coding) at 1709:tag on the article now. If I replace the current 1114:National Institute of Oceanography image database 1036:. Anyway, some thought will have to go into this. 1301:article. As I see, there are many articles like 2755:Summary - Either way is fine by me. Lets start, 2262:Zinta recieved nominations for her performances 2177:is written like a personal reflection or essay 1290:Critics' opinion in Bollywood related articles 202:Reliable source for Bollywood related articles 918: 8: 2350:To balance it, negative quotes are needed.-- 840:A Support to Knowledge (XXG) Indian Editions 309:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard 2461:I definitely agree with you if reviews are 1579:You want more, here's more: On her role in 1629:Those were very good example by amar. Per 511:reliability of these sites can be checked? 2110:Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Full_name 1602:which makes its presence in the article: 1217:. Pls. add those articles in the portal. 426:http://www.nielsenedi.com/corp/index.html 2492::) I'm taking a few FAs as role models. 2185:There is no evidence that this topic is 800:. It can be accessed with the shortcut, 2181:does not cite any references or sources 555:as source of information for themselves 2104:The page name has now been changed to 2085:Talk:Mohandas Gandhi#Anti-Gandhian POV 486:for referencing in Knowledge (XXG)? - 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2067:"Mahatma Gandhi" or "Mohandas Gandhi" 1798:The same Rediff on the same film here 482:, then will my site be considered as 354:Can someone check the reliability of 7: 2334:I went though the reviews listed in 1637:IndiaFM, Tribune, telegraph, HT etc. 1482:Wiki article says about her role in 645:' for wikipedia purposes, let alone 514:Regarding popular culture articles, 110:The article about him had the title 2490:STARTED WORKING ON THE ARTICLE GUYS 2199:So lastly, read it with observation 2695:Anyway, keep at it. Happy editing, 2174:Shahid Pratap Singh of Punja Sahib 2166:Shahid Pratap Singh of Punja Sahib 1562:to question the neutrality of the 1013:Some ideas/problems I could find: 24: 2081:Talk:Mohandas Gandhi#Gandhian POV 995:I was going through the articles 1547:review which is included in the 29: 2264:, so she obviousle was praised. 2087:if you're interested. Thanks, – 815:. There is also the log on the 2579:opinion - that's what matters. 1: 2442: 2401:20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2360:19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2329:18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2133:(desperately) needs your help 2099:02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2036:21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2012:23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1991:17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1949:16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1936:16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1889:16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1875:16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1855:16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1826:16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1773:16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1723:16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1700:16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1660:15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1650:15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1615:16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1575:15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1517:15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1465:14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1447:13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1422:12:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1402:12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1377:12:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1348:12:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1326:12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1285:14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 1250:14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1230:11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1182:05:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1168:17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1148:10:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1133:09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1109:18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1076:06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1060:06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 985:17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 956:17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 940:16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 908:13:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 835:19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 790:new article announcement page 776:05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 735:09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 718:08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 695:02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 677:09:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 654:22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 636:21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 619:21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 600:21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 584:21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 569:15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 432:), and distributor reports". 197:06:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 158:00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 130:15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2768:09:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 2728:00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 2708:16:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2671:10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2633:07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2599:23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2562:18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2504:10:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2478:08:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2445:04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2434: 2420: 2250:while she is the supporting. 2194:19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2157:18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2124:17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2062:07:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2053:07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 1272:There can be few more left. 1204:05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 529:22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 491:21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 466:21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 449:20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 411:19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 386:01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 363:22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 345:18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 321:19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 291:19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 278:18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 261:18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 237:17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 2427: 1095:Religious violence in India 1084:Religious violence in India 991:Route map for Indian trains 817:User:AlexNewArtBot/IndiaLog 120:Yadavindra Singh of Patiala 106:Yadavindra Singh of Patiala 2792: 2106:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 2336:Talk:Preity_Zinta#Reviews 2242:Chori Chori Chupke Chupke 544:boxofficeindia.com..." - 116:Maharaja Yadavindra Singh 1974:observation? I gave you 1523:Chori Chori Chuke Chupke 919:http://ta.wikipedia.org/ 860:http://mozhi.org/punjabi 1364:-related articles from 1262:Kaziranga National Park 701:Indian Box Office Index 474:..and how do we ensure 2269:Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna 1209:Regarding Portal India 1068:The Silent Contributor 1048:The Silent Contributor 1018:do we represent these? 863:http://mozhi.org/tamil 857:http://mozhi.org/hindi 2413:Amarrg & Shahid, 2292:Rediff criticise her. 2023:needs general cleanup 1747:What about Armaan on 1495:the article in Rediff 1152:The answer is NO. We 899:Hindi Knowledge (XXG) 849:http://mozhi.org/news 392:www.fullhyderabad.com 42:of past discussions. 2344:Lage Raho Munna Bhai 428:??), Variety Corp. ( 350:indiantelevision.com 1358:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1093:I felt the article 1082:Comments needed on 788:In addition to the 242:Planetbollywood.com 2309:Was nominated for 2206:is presented below 2042:Devasahayam Pillai 1008:Golden Temple Mail 807:The bot runs on a 782:User:AlexNewArtBot 539:boxofficeindia.com 397:It seems to be RS. 171:Malayalam language 2115:Fowler&fowler 2108:. (See my post: 2097: 1478:This is what the 1331:Why specifically 1281: 1267:Kingdom of Mysore 1226: 1062: 1046:comment added by 987: 971:comment added by 942: 926:comment added by 892: 878:comment added by 784:- New Article Bot 164:Mappila Malayalam 112:Yuvraj of Patiala 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2783: 2766: 2764: 2724: 2706: 2704: 2667: 2631: 2629: 2595: 2585:majority opinion 2560: 2558: 2500: 2474: 2443: 2440: 2433: 2426: 2397: 2325: 2121: 2116: 2091: 2008: 1987: 1946: 1932: 1886: 1871: 1851: 1823: 1769: 1720: 1696: 1612: 1572: 1514: 1461: 1444: 1443: 1418: 1398: 1374: 1344: 1323: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1227: 1225: 1221: 1165: 1160: 1041: 966: 921: 901:, for example.-- 891: 872: 833: 830: 823: 731: 692: 687: 673: 632: 596: 565: 462: 407: 274: 194: 188: 183: 150: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2762: 2756: 2718: 2702: 2696: 2661: 2627: 2621: 2589: 2556: 2550: 2494: 2468: 2391: 2319: 2224:Mission Kashmir 2201: 2170: 2168:needs your help 2135: 2119: 2114: 2077:Mohandas Gandhi 2069: 2045: 2025: 2002: 1981: 1942: 1926: 1882: 1865: 1845: 1819: 1763: 1716: 1690: 1608: 1568: 1510: 1484:Mission Kashmir 1455: 1440:♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 1437: 1436: 1412: 1392: 1370: 1360:. Criticism on 1338: 1319: 1292: 1279: 1274: 1224: 1219: 1211: 1163: 1158: 1116: 1088: 1034:Coast_Starlight 1001:Amtrak_Cascades 997:Coast_Starlight 993: 873: 842: 828: 825: 821: 786: 759: 725: 690: 685: 667: 626: 590: 559: 541: 484:reliable source 480:reliable source 456: 418: 416:ibosnetwork.com 401: 394: 352: 333: 268: 244: 216: 204: 192: 186: 179: 169:In view of the 167: 148: 139: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2789: 2787: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2753: 2750: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2713: 2693: 2690: 2686: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2658: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2602: 2601: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2569: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2530: 2529: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2515: 2514: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2382: 2378: 2363: 2362: 2347: 2339: 2314: 2313: 2307: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2273: 2272: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2225: 2200: 2197: 2184: 2169: 2163: 2161: 2134: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2073:Mahatma Gandhi 2068: 2065: 2044: 2039: 2033:201.37.229.117 2024: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 1994: 1993: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1795: 1777: 1760: 1759: 1752: 1744: 1743: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1711:critic reviews 1681: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1638: 1634: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1593: 1577: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1542: 1519: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1491: 1468: 1467: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1351: 1350: 1291: 1288: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1210: 1207: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1120:image database 1115: 1112: 1087: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1038: 1037: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1019: 992: 989: 963: 962: 958: 911: 910: 841: 838: 813:bot owner page 785: 779: 763:Veeramanidasan 758: 756:Veeramanidasan 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 681: 680: 679: 660:The fact that 540: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 512: 508: 505: 496: 495: 494: 493: 469: 468: 417: 414: 393: 390: 389: 388: 351: 348: 332: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 296: 295: 294: 293: 281: 280: 243: 240: 215: 212: 203: 200: 166: 161: 138: 133: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2788: 2769: 2765: 2759: 2754: 2751: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2729: 2725: 2723: 2722: 2714: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2699: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2672: 2668: 2666: 2665: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2624: 2620: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2594: 2593: 2586: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2559: 2553: 2546: 2542: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2526: 2525: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2505: 2501: 2499: 2498: 2491: 2479: 2475: 2473: 2472: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2441: 2439: 2438: 2432: 2431: 2425: 2424: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2402: 2398: 2396: 2395: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2345: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2323: 2312: 2308: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2290: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2233: 2230: 2229: 2226: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2219: 2215: 2209: 2207: 2198: 2196: 2195: 2192: 2191:Writtenonsand 2188: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2172:The article 2167: 2164: 2162: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2154:Writtenonsand 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2132: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2117: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2066: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2059:Ravichandar84 2055: 2054: 2051: 2050:Ravichandar84 2043: 2040: 2038: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2022: 2019: 2013: 2009: 2007: 2006: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1992: 1988: 1986: 1985: 1977: 1972: 1971: 1950: 1947: 1945: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1931: 1930: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1890: 1887: 1885: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1870: 1869: 1862: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1850: 1849: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1816: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1768: 1767: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1724: 1721: 1719: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1695: 1694: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1661: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1582: 1578: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1565: 1560: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1524: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1507: 1503: 1496: 1492: 1490: 1489:proceedings." 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1460: 1459: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1441: 1423: 1419: 1417: 1416: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1397: 1396: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1378: 1375: 1373: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1343: 1342: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1322: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1277: 1268: 1265: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1222: 1216: 1208: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1166: 1161: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1113: 1111: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1096: 1091: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040:Any others? 1035: 1031: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1011: 1009: 1004: 1002: 998: 990: 988: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 959: 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 920: 914: 909: 906: 904: 900: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 869: 865: 864: 861: 858: 854: 851: 850: 846: 839: 837: 836: 831: 824: 818: 814: 810: 809:list of rules 805: 803: 799: 795: 791: 783: 780: 778: 777: 773: 769: 764: 757: 754: 736: 732: 730: 729: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 706: 702: 698: 697: 696: 693: 688: 682: 678: 674: 672: 671: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 652: 648: 644: 639: 638: 637: 633: 631: 630: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 608: 603: 602: 601: 597: 595: 594: 587: 586: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 571: 570: 566: 564: 563: 556: 552: 548: 546: 538: 530: 526: 522: 517: 513: 509: 506: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 492: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 472: 471: 470: 467: 463: 461: 460: 453: 452: 451: 450: 446: 442: 437: 433: 431: 427: 422: 415: 413: 412: 408: 406: 405: 398: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 366: 365: 364: 361: 357: 349: 347: 346: 342: 338: 330: 322: 318: 314: 310: 306: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 292: 289: 285: 284: 283: 282: 279: 275: 273: 272: 265: 264: 263: 262: 258: 254: 248: 241: 239: 238: 234: 230: 224: 220: 213: 211: 209: 201: 199: 198: 195: 189: 184: 182: 176: 172: 165: 162: 160: 159: 156: 155: 151: 145: 143: 137: 134: 132: 131: 128: 125: 121: 117: 113: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2720: 2719: 2663: 2662: 2654:Bette Daviss 2591: 2590: 2584: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2507: 2496: 2495: 2489: 2488: 2470: 2469: 2462: 2436: 2435: 2429: 2428: 2422: 2421: 2414: 2393: 2392: 2386: 2373: 2343: 2321: 2320: 2315: 2310: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2261: 2213: 2210: 2205: 2202: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2160: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2092: 2070: 2056: 2046: 2027:The article 2026: 2004: 2003: 1983: 1982: 1975: 1943: 1928: 1927: 1883: 1867: 1866: 1847: 1846: 1820: 1809: 1801: 1792: 1776: 1765: 1764: 1761: 1740: 1717: 1710: 1706: 1692: 1691: 1684: 1609: 1603: 1596:Taran Adarsh 1590: 1580: 1569: 1564:Preity Zinta 1552: 1549:Preity Zinta 1538: 1531:Taran Adarsh 1522: 1511: 1505: 1487: 1483: 1480:Preity Zinta 1457: 1456: 1439: 1438: 1432: 1414: 1413: 1407: 1394: 1393: 1371: 1365: 1340: 1339: 1332: 1320: 1317:. Thanks -- 1314: 1310: 1306: 1303:Preity Zinta 1299:Preity Zinta 1296: 1293: 1271: 1245:thunderboltz 1215:Portal:India 1212: 1191: 1190: 1153: 1117: 1101:DhananSekhar 1099: 1092: 1089: 1039: 1012: 1005: 994: 973:Aasisvinayak 964: 928:Aasisvinayak 915: 912: 903:thunderboltz 880:Aasisvinayak 870: 866: 855: 852: 847: 843: 806: 787: 768:Kevin Murray 760: 727: 726: 669: 668: 661: 628: 627: 592: 591: 561: 560: 554: 550: 542: 483: 475: 458: 457: 438: 434: 423: 419: 403: 402: 395: 353: 334: 331:Apunkachoice 270: 269: 249: 245: 225: 221: 217: 208:Preity Zinta 205: 180: 168: 153: 140: 109: 78: 43: 37: 2152:Thanks. -- 1789:Rediff here 1756:Variety.com 1754:What about 1657:John Carter 1566:article -- 1042:—Preceding 967:—Preceding 922:—Preceding 874:—Preceding 36:This is an 1707:neutrality 1685:considered 1506:glorifying 1309:critic's, 1275:Amartyabag 1220:Amartyabag 1196:Aksi_great 1174:Aksi_great 1125:Aksi_great 710:Figurefour 374:disclaimer 214:Bollyvista 98:Archive 35 90:Archive 31 85:Archive 30 79:Archive 29 73:Archive 28 68:Archive 27 60:Archive 25 2749:database. 2528:negative. 2352:Dwaipayan 2138:Kottakkal 2131:Kottakkal 2089:priyanath 1642:Dwaipayan 1551:article: 1493:Whereas, 1362:Bollywood 1333:Bollywood 1241:WP:PINSAC 798:this page 651:Sarvagnya 611:Dwaipayan 576:Dwaipayan 521:Dwaipayan 441:Dwaipayan 378:Dwaipayan 360:Gnanapiti 337:Dwaipayan 313:Dwaipayan 253:Dwaipayan 229:Dwaipayan 181:Jreferee 173:article, 1861:SEE THIS 1540:portions 1311:verbatim 1159:=Nichalp 1056:contribs 1044:unsigned 981:contribs 969:unsigned 948:Mahitgar 936:contribs 924:unsigned 888:contribs 876:unsigned 802:WP:INNEW 794:WP:INBIN 686:=Nichalp 647:reliable 551:not only 372:and the 370:about us 2612:anyone. 2549:Thanks, 2463:notably 2374:general 2304:Variety 2296:indiaFM 2187:notable 1631:wp:npov 1600:IndiaFM 1535:Indiafm 1366:notable 1307:notable 1164:«Talk»= 1086:article 897:box at 822:Ganeshk 691:«Talk»= 643:notable 399:Is it? 39:archive 2721:Shahid 2664:Shahid 2592:Shahid 2497:Shahid 2471:Shahid 2437:Dreamz 2394:Shahid 2322:Shahid 2285:Armaan 2260:Plus, 2254:well." 2148:, and 2120:«Talk» 2005:Shahid 1984:Shahid 1944:¿Amar៛ 1929:Shahid 1884:¿Amar៛ 1868:Shahid 1859:KANK? 1848:Shahid 1821:¿Amar៛ 1766:Shahid 1741:Armaan 1718:¿Amar៛ 1693:Shahid 1610:¿Amar៛ 1587:Rediff 1581:Armaan 1570:¿Amar៛ 1545:Rediff 1512:¿Amar៛ 1458:Shahid 1415:Shahid 1395:Shahid 1372:¿Amar៛ 1341:Shahid 1321:¿Amar៛ 1192:Update 1154:cannot 728:Shahid 670:Shahid 629:Shahid 593:Shahid 562:Shahid 459:Shahid 404:Shahid 358:site? 271:Shahid 127:Tintin 2644:RSes. 2513:film. 2423:Bolly 2277:(!!!) 2029:Beedi 2021:Beedi 1408:facts 1236:Ambuj 1140:Ragib 607:WP:RS 516:WP:RS 305:WP:RS 149:Jayen 16:< 2430:wood 2415:both 2370:here 2356:talk 2302:and 2218:this 2179:and 2094:talk 2083:and 1646:talk 1294:Hi, 1200:talk 1178:talk 1144:talk 1129:talk 1105:talk 1090:Hi, 1072:talk 1052:talk 999:and 977:talk 952:talk 932:talk 884:talk 829:talk 772:talk 761:The 714:talk 705:here 615:talk 609:).-- 580:talk 525:talk 476:that 445:talk 382:talk 356:this 341:talk 317:talk 257:talk 233:talk 136:Osho 2726:• 2669:• 2597:• 2502:• 2476:• 2399:• 2327:• 2300:BBC 2220:): 2183:. 2112:. 2075:to 2010:• 1989:• 1976:two 1934:• 1873:• 1853:• 1771:• 1749:BBC 1698:• 1606:-- 1598:at 1533:in 1463:• 1420:• 1400:• 1346:• 733:• 675:• 662:you 634:• 598:• 567:• 488:KNM 464:• 409:• 288:KNM 276:• 154:466 2760:| 2758:xC 2700:| 2698:xC 2625:| 2623:xC 2554:| 2552:xC 2358:) 2298:, 2144:, 1800:: 1791:: 1648:) 1589:: 1583:: 1537:: 1525:: 1486:: 1202:) 1180:) 1146:) 1131:) 1107:) 1074:) 1058:) 1054:• 983:) 979:• 954:) 938:) 934:• 890:) 886:• 804:. 774:) 766:-- 716:) 617:) 582:) 527:) 447:) 384:) 343:) 319:) 259:) 235:) 94:→ 64:← 2763:☎ 2703:☎ 2628:☎ 2557:☎ 2354:( 1644:( 1198:( 1176:( 1142:( 1127:( 1103:( 1070:( 1050:( 975:( 950:( 930:( 882:( 832:) 826:( 792:( 770:( 712:( 641:' 613:( 578:( 523:( 443:( 380:( 339:( 315:( 255:( 231:( 193:c 190:/ 187:t 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.