Talk:Action Hero Biju

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016

Please add a box office update. "The film managed to collect more than ₹10 crore after 3 weeks of release." Source-[1] 106.77.168.188 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Thanks for your request, 106.77.168.188, I've added the value to the infobox. I don't think we need the prose, though, since tracking the gross as it is developing just tends to clutter the box office section. "On the first day it grossed A. On the second day it grossed B. By the end of the second week it had grossed C. By the end of the third week it had grossed D. By the end..." See my point? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment by 117.213.23.253

User:Cyphoidbomb, activities in this article seems to like a registered and employed online film promoter. If it sounds like duck, it walks like a duck. His/Hers actions and past edits should be reviewed and taken appropriate measure. WP:EW and uses WP:DE inappropriately.117.213.23.253 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

117.213.23.253 - Can you elaborate? Nairspecht (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

117.213.23.253 - What? No idea what you are trying to say. You were describing the film as "plot-less"[2][3][4] which sounds like you are complaining about the film's story line. If this is not what you meant, you are free to explain yourself here, but until you do, and until you receive consensus for the inclusion of this phrasing, the content is indistinguishable from the typical vandalism we see in film articles on a daily basis. Complaining about me personally is irrelevant to the discussion and you are not likely to find any support. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cyphoidbomb but maybe 117.213.23.253 wasn't able to identify the film with other general genres.(It might have appeared plot-less in his or her view) I have changed it to a closer one.117.241.21.13 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a mockumentary! Now that make sense. "Plot-less" does not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In these edits [5] I had to cut some content for making little sense grammatically, and for being needlessly verbose. The title of the film stands for promotional aspects than its relation with the story. This doesn't make sense grammatically, and the intended meaning is not coming through. Promotional aspects? What? Action Hero Biju is a 2016 Indian Malayalam-language is a [sic] mockumentary of reality legal documentries in an action - crime centered genre directed by Abrid Shine and starring Nivin Pauly in the title role. is a run-on sentence. Mockumentary is a genre. Noting that the mockumentary mocks reality legal shows is sufficient. Introducing action-crime on top of that is needlessly verbose and "action - crime centered genre" is clunky and confusing if we've already identified the film's genre. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how this discussion originated, but having seen the film myself, I do not concur to the film being called mockumentary. I know my personal opinion holds no weight, but it's true. Really? At best, it is an action drama about a week in the life of a police officer. Inducing vague subgenres like "reality legal documentaries" is, I think, a superfluous attempt at making things complex. Also, even the current summary doesn't make sense. On a more stricter note, the film was trolled by a faction in the State, and I give the IP user the benefit of doubt that aimlessly changing the intro sentence of the film is tied to the very same incident that hampered the film's release in some parts of Kerala. Nairspecht (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - I suggest we stick to the summary that was written ahead of this petty fiasco. Thoughts? Nairspecht (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There should be sources for every genre or sub-genre adding in the lead. It should be in the body or as an inline citation in lead (not recommended). The "mockumentary" and "reality legal" can only be assumed as ones own personal view unless there is citations for that. And no need for a discussion for removing unsourced claims. --Charles Turing (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to yield to what can be sourced. No probs. I agree that genre is subjective. And frankly, I've been seeing a lot of Indian film articles go a little apeshit with subgenres. "Romantic comedy drama action gangster thriller" and crap like that. Typically film articles only contain the main genre and then perhaps a single sub-genre. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. So anyone who is interested in adding a genre/subgenre, and manages to find a credible source, I think action drama is the best bet. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The best-bet is not to follow what promotional or dependent sources give-out or define it. Anyone who claims have seen the film can relate with America's Most Wanted & Cops (TV series). Nowhere in the film "Action Hero" is mentioned or even implied, so it doesn't have any relation to the film other than for promotional aspects as mentioned by someone. But I disagree with sketches its playlets (short plays), so I have changed that. Even though stands acceptable docudrama seems more right. Comments like reality legal can only be assumed is not helpful at all when this are officially recognized genre. I would also like to see non-dependent sources for "On a more stricter note, the film was trolled by a faction in the State, and I give the IP user the benefit of doubt that aimlessly changing the intro sentence of the film is tied to the very same incident that hampered the film's release in some parts of Kerala." If this indeed was an important subject that have shaken the Kerala Film Industry, I would like to read both sides about it. Otherwise this are all opinions and concerns to influence the populace. 117.213.23.253 concerns are also alarming whether paid and online film promoters are indeed using wikipedia as a tool for promotion or other related activities. 117.248.62.200 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the point. Provide sources unless its your personal claim. The content stays away until you list the sources. This is how things are done in Wikipedia. --Charles Turing (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turings activity seems to be highly disrupting. In the above comment I only stated the obvious. There is no need to fight it. Action hero and Brave cop are two different things. If a simple comment on a reverted content has brought this much hostility, it simply is edit-war and vandalism. Either you haven't seen the film or its your favourable opinions you are pushing into wikipedia. I will also like to see where it says plots require to be cited. Then we have to engage a wide content deletion across wikipedia. Either stop this vandalism or revert.106.208.49.157 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggested you to source your claims, other editor supported that too. But you are not doing that but simply "fighting" (struggling is more accurate) over it. This is not how consensus is reached. Let's take a look at who is putting his personal opinions into wikipedia. You bring mockumentary, docufiction, reality legal and other craps without sourcing. You said the title "Action Hero" is purely promotional and also added it in the lead without any sources. You can add these kind of "opinions" in your Facebook page, not in a public encyclopedia. Here we need sources. For a note, see what the director says, "The film is a light take on policing, it is not the hardcore police kind of story – it is a mix of humour and action. It is about a police sub-inspector’s heroism'....." (see production section). Your perception about vandalism is also wrong, damaging the wikipedia by any means is vandalism. That includes unsourced claims and personal commentaries like you did, the way you wrote the plot was also useless. And no plot is written, it's only a one-line idea about the theme in that section, it's sourced as there is dispute over it, and also to help understand the users who haven't watched the film. I have watched it. Quarrelling doesn't help. If you want to add anything, source it. It's that simple. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. There are numerous IPs speaking here, but it's unclear who is who. Here's the bottom line: 1) Interpretive content should be sourced. Genre is open to interpretation, so if there are disputes, we go with what the majority of reliable published sources say, not with our own opinions. 2) Plots should be sourced prior to a film's release per WP:CRYSTAL. After a film is released, the primary source (the film) is assumed to be the source of the plot. However, pay attention to #1, because interpretive content needs to be sourced. Any content that attempts to ascribe meaning to a scene, or that attempts to describe any subjective aspect of the film, needs to come from reliable sources. Also, what reliable source described the film as having "playlets"? That is an extraordinarily uncommon term in contemporary entertainment. 3) 106.208.49.157, your claim of vandalism is way off the mark. This is a normal, common discussion about the inclusion of subjective content, and there has been nothing disruptive about Charles Turing's edits. In contrast, the resubmission of gibberish, by whomever is behind 117.215.199.112, was disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing's edits comes under vandalism when the editor is clearing out real plot events. I don't understand the term "non-linear". There is quote in an added description by CharlesTurning "We see the world through his(police officer's) eyes – we experience his views, experiences and emotions" - reality legal and a bit more further explored is the description of series of playlet's. The film is already released so I dont think it comes under WP:CRYSTAL.(Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice) Citing reviews also wont be enough to describe a plot. It doesn't always give a clear picture. How it works in reviews is like it gives "colorful base of the movie" and the rest should be viewed through theaters or other media. It doesn't always give a clear picture. In wikipedia, if the film is released usually the whole plot is given by generous editors, without mentioning the twists and describing the central events in the story. After 1-2 months the whole plot is described. - This is the pattern seen with Malayalam Films. I have only updated an existing content which termed sketches to playlet's because it gives clarity to the plot. As a person who have seen the film, I can say it is a collection of playlet's or skits played out in a series. It is not clear whether the 16 situations happen in a single day or through a no. of days. Because only situations in a police office or matters regarding police intervention are shown. If we check the sources included by Charles Turning it isn't subjective as we speak - "The first police role in every hero's career is special and I will try to present him in a different look in this movie." - This shows Action Hero aspect. The taunts and labeling is a bit out of the way- Not civil at all. The edits and these taunts all reflect to disruptive attempts. Reverts done by 117.215.199.112 also seems to be blind rv game without any summary - Leaving guidance(describing what is happening - whether its an ongoing edit or when reverts could be used, other editing guides...etc.) to the user page would be a better way to deal with it initially. 117.213.19.145 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC), 106.208.49.157, 117.248.62.200

I think you misinterpreted some of my comments above. WP:CRYSTAL refers to predicting something that hasn't happened yet. I wasn't citing it as relevant after the film was released. Your understanding of plot summaries is a little off as well. There's no mandatory built-in delay for releasing plot details. Per WP:SPOILER, we do not suppress plot twists in a plot summary. If it's relevant to our understanding of the work, a detailed plot summary could be presented immediately upon release. That said, my thoughts are as follows: I think that describing the film in the plot section as a "non-linear narrative comprising a number of light comedic sketches that take place on an average day" (or something similar and relevant) seems to be reasonable, assuming that the film does, in fact, consist of a number of short sketches, and that some of the subjective adjectives like "light comedy" could be substantiated. I'd like to invite Charles Turing to comment on what objections he had with the plot content added in these edits. I don't think that "Playlet" is as universally understood, and would lean toward "sketch 1, sketch 2, etc." I also think that each segment could be expanded a bit (maybe by one or two sentences?) to give a clearer picture of the overall arc each sketch takes. I will say that the additions to the lede in this edit are a bit obtuse. "Action-crime centered" is definitely hanging me up. We should use a sourced genre, and then if relevant, we could add a descriptive sentence elsewhere in the lede that clarifies the structure of the film, perhaps akin to the "non-linear narrative comprising..." text I've proposed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why this IP editor is acting like the other IP's commented above are strangers. Behavioral evidences shows that all are the same person, that including the first IP who wrote the "plot-less" and "The title of the film has no relation with the story". But he is acting like he don't know them. He has dynamic IP addresses, maybe using a Net Setter for connecting internet. The plot details a police officer investigating each cases occurring around his territory. But listing it as playlets or bulleted sentences will deceive the readers from the actual structure. It should be paraphrased, otherwise it looks like different chapters which is not the case. The plot is a realistic portrayal of how a Police Inspector [Biju] solves each case that comes to him in a routine day. It's NOT nonlinear, the plot has continuity and is in chronological order. I already quoted the director's interpretation of the title from his words. So you don't need to define another meaning by "yourself". And the sentence "The first police role in every heros career is special and I will try to present him in a different look in this movie." are the words from actor Nivin Pauly. Here, "hero" was meant for Nivin himself, and I don't know what you meant by highlighting "special" ?. By the sentence, the actor only said that it's every actors wish to do police roles and now he got the opportunity and he will try to present it in a unique style. That's all, how come you get an interpretation about the title from this sentence ?. It's ridiculous. See the director's words. Don't derive your own meanings. --Charles Turing (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm going to back off a little here. I haven't seen the film. Probably will never see it. I was making an assumption about non-linear, which is typically how vignette-based films are structured. Considering that you and the IP have disparate opinions of the structure of the film, more discussion is obviously warranted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If these independent IP's doesn't have an issue I guess Charles Turing (Seems like the editor has seen the film and most likely a fan) can re-write the plot per WP:SPOILER and avoid all these confusion. A small note that I would suggest is when writing do structure the chronological order of events and define boldly how it sets apart from individualized sketches or playlet's. Explain the behavioral evidences cited in the first part of concerns.117.241.55.42 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The link you have cited starts by Abrid Shine(director) says in relation to the Film and its main actor. It isn't piece where the actor says. I first changed the misunderstanding in your edit but later remembered shouldn't. The way you are interpreting it as a Actor's concern is really "different"=rid******s when it clearly refers to the directors words. It would be like if a piece on merits and demerits is cited and only sourcing the parts of the article for fun or .... I But I guessthis was an honest mistake. Recheck: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/Nivin-Pauly-will-don-khaki-in-Abrid-Shines-action-film/articleshow/42036961.cms 117.241.55.42 (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Before I explain the behavioral evidences, I want to know which of the IPs you (117.241.55.42) admit to be yourself. I want this reply from 117.241.55.42, not another IP (because I asked it to you). And why you are still talking about the title issue. The director already explained the meaning of the title. So your claim about it being promotional is dismissed. I am not a fan of this film, Abrid Shine or Nivin Pauly. Till now, I haven't written a plot for any films. I suggest to put a tag in the section for a plot. Lets see how another editor who haven't involved in this discussion writes it. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Rescuing plot elements, the cited (http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/abrid-shine-and-nivin-pauly-join-hands-in-action-hero-biju/article8161618.ece) is data before the film's original release date. The newer revision is updated and has a similar content.59.88.209.242 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear what you are asking or announcing. Can you please clarify? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement on the reverted content without explanation.59.88.209.242 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there an problem with the rescued plot details. Is there anyone who have seen, then edit the article content and clarify, so that others can see the difference. Don't simply keep on reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.20.36 (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• As per WP:PLOTSUMNOT, your rescued plot points look like journal entries. Why don't you go ahead and summarize it all in few sentences and we can shut this case and go back to doing something better? Refer this for more info. Examples here and here. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Cite an example of similar journal entry for better understanding. The structure given in the plot is described as such, it is a linear series of cases solved by a sub-inspector which doesn't inter-relate in any manner. I am sure that the cases explored are not done in one day. I guess bullet-wise summary was the best way to put the film plot. Since this was the only progressive edit available, I think its safe to keep it until a better detailed edit happens. Do you know capable editors who can re-write it from the given data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.30.191 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot summaries are never written in bullet-point form, and more importantly, your persistent edit-warring is disruptive, and will result in the page being protected. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb

What sort of block is that you have initiated, it doesn't explain your position on this "is it for personal reasons or is it related to the article content". Re-read edit warring when no parties are warring each other, its only you reverting the content citing edit warring - what sort of logic is that. Have you completely lost it or what.117.241.20.21 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking me. Your edits over the last few days here have been extraordinarily disruptive. At the first sign of resistance, i.e. when your changes were first reverted by TJH2018, you should have come here to open a discussion, not engage in a petulant edit war. I was actually in the process of having IP 61.3.41.52 unblocked, but you took the low ground again, hopped IPs and continued the disruption. Using multiple IPs to avoid previous blocks is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Since you wouldn't stop on your own, I had to intervene, and now you've ruined it for other editors who wish to participate. Bottom line: Stop with the disruptive editing, please. You've done this numerous times across several articles and it goes against the entire "community" aspect of "community editing project". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I respect what you said. I am not sure whether you initiated a block for TJH2018 or not, if you have, your actions are more akin to a responsible editor. The last edit was when all the pranks have literally ended and the edit seemed fine. I didn't knew you where on the process of blocking 61.3.41.52. Ip 59.88.208.218 is not me, though I am 117.213.20.160. I use a shared network, but that doesn't mean anything harmful to wikipedia. The question is do you have any dispute against the content which TJH2018 was reverting, if not its not me who "ruined" or stood against "community editing project". If an editor is providing input and the same is simply reverted by other editors without giving explanation or if given simply citing policies in the most nonsensical way to halt the progress of the article or to protect their own judgement(wrong or right) for future wiki-ambitions. If asked for any explanations these editors move for blocks - is this community editing project - where an editor cant work with an another or simply don't care and revert and block because they can, then the notion of community editing simply dissolves. In case of any wiki-disputes, both the parties are equally guilty in one way or another. Sometimes the share of weight will be equal or distributed against the parties involved. I have no idea what you mention about "numerous times across several articles".117.248.62.7 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk to me, then {{ping|TJH2018}}, instead of talking behind my back. If you are accusing me of something, then take it to my talk page. TJH2018talk 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018, this was not about you, the talk was about policies, the reverted content and the following block that was placed on the article and its addressed to Cyphoidbomb. 117.213.19.115 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having difficulty believing that you were not involved in that string of IP edits. Feel free to discuss your proposed edits here rather than focusing on something (the page protection) that you have no influence over. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes made from an IP after IP 80.227.99.114 edits, are done by me. I am not sure what does it have anything to do with the article. -If that's what you are referring. I responded after seeing "removing unnecessary details" the edit at first seemed fine later the corrected edit also seemed fine anything in between seemed child-play or reversion without checks. The enactment of policies were mentioned because actions that resulted into it didn't seem to justify and further censuring was followed."Bottom line: Stop with the disruptive editing, please. You've done this numerous times across several articles and it goes against the entire "community" aspect of "community editing project". - Maybe its a normal way of talk among english speakers. If so, the cultural difference in understanding the expression of the sentence made me feel to respond or to responsibly give a clear picture. Though none of these matters. The only question that pertains to the article is whether this(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Action_Hero_Biju&diff=717948229&oldid=717946699)-(connection is getting so slow so i cant confirm now whether it was that edit) edit was acceptable. If not could it be corrected further. If yes could it be reverted to that.117.242.255.150 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018, since this discussion was intiated because of your content concerns (whatever they might be), it would be appreciated if you'd participate further in this discussion or indicate that you're dropping the matter, if that's what you're doing. The IP-hopping user has restored his preferred version of the plot. And as for you, IP-hopper, you should probably consider opening an account (provided that doing so wouldn't violate any Wikpedia policies) since your frequent IP hops make it difficult to communicate with you, and communication is crucial here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)