Talk:7 Aum Arivu

Edit request on 30 May 2012

The Visual Effects were completed and handled by Makuta VFX, Hyderabad, not Legacy Effects as incorrectly reported. www.makutavfx.com

183.83.36.152 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done you need to source this before it can be considered; additionally it would be helpful if you could specify exactly what text you want taking out and what text you want putting in. Egg Centric 00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2012

Box Office: 98 crore Jokerjam90 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is unreliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cant agree with you more websites like Kollyinsider and IMDB are a big non sense who have no idea on how box office works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravin.murthy (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

References

vandalism by kart777

kart777 has vandalized this article by adding unreliable kollywoodinsider source ,pls revert it to the old proper version122.174.31.137 (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Declared a hit"

In this edit I reverted good faith changes made by Rcrox in which he removed sourced content in favor of unsourced subjective fluff "the film was declared a hit at the box office". These assertions do not have any meaning to an encyclopedia because they are entirely subjective. Who declared it a hit? And what does "hit" mean? What we should be talking about is objective data. Gross vs. budget, marketing and distribution costs. Do we know what the actual profit was, or are we speculating? Phrases like "hit", "super-hit", "blockbuster" have no place in an encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: this resubmission of the contested content, even if attributed, "hit" is still meaningless. If you want say that it was profitable, that'd be fine, (if sourced) because it's an objective description. But "hit"? What does that mean? That's like calling the film "gorgeous". It doesn't make it a fact regardless of whether or not a reliable source declared it as such. For a real-world parallel, we don't say "Film X was declared rotten" simply because RottenTomatoes.com found low critical approval. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 7aum Arivu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170115162548/http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/review-seven-am-arivu/20111026.htm to http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/review-seven-am-arivu/20111026.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

7aum arivu

it has collected more than 150cr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sribinkr (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sribinkr: Bring proof. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for some examples of suitable references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

2401:4900:3159:3491:299D:AC3:4B2F:C01F (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)90 =120

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 22:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

AP Herald / India Herald

@SuriyaCR7Fan and Billinghurst: Re: the back-and-forth about AP Herald / India Herald, I don't see any sort of information page at indiaherald.com that would suggest there is a clear editorial oversight. SuriyaCR7Fan, since you seem to be a staunch defender of this source, where can that information be found? Also to your point about it being registered with the government, I don't see anything when I search for it at http://rni.nic.in/. Not that being registered would automatically make it a reliable source, that would only mean that they announced their intention to be a newspaper. That'd be like saying a film must be a great movie because it was registered with the CBFC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if you remove AP Herald, there is another reliable source in Kungumam that states that 7aum Arivu grossed 100 crore. However, I see no clear reason for the source to be removed. It is a registered newspaper and they have named a journalist. The fact that this source is not widely used does not make it any less reliable. It's not as if the most trusted sources do not make mistakes at all. SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion of a source is not that they are right this time. The threshold for inclusion is not that they are registered as a newspaper (which I couldn't find to be true anyway) or that they have named a journalist. I don't know anything about that journalist, do you? For all we know, they could be a "contributor", which is a fancy word for blogger. The threshold for inclusion of a source should be that the source is a well-known mainstream publication with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. With no obvious information about editorial oversight, that's difficult to ascertain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Range of box office figures

Multiple IPs from Kerala keep changing the format of the box office figures from the correct format, to an incorrect one. MOS:CURRENCY clearly states
: "Ranges should be expressed giving the currency signifier just once: $250–300, not $250–$300."
Please stop using ₹ twice - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)