Jump to content

Talk:English Vinglish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsensical boxoffice numbers

[edit]

Whoever is the person that keeps posting random inflated box office numbers for the movie needs to stop. All the reliable trade sources I have checked point at a gross of approximately 62-65 crore INR worldwide. These 91-100 crore numbers are completely made up and serve no purpose. Also, removed bunch of dubious statements from the Impact section.
Blacksun (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually domestic nett and international gross amount to 62-65 crores. The domestic gross and international gross are 85+ crore, that may be where the confusion is stemming from (though I have not read anything pointing to 91-100 crore, maybe after satellite rights/video rights are sold). Maybe that distinction needs to be made. See http://www.kollytalk.com/cinenews/sri-devis-english-vinglish-completes-a-fifty/ and http://www.talkmag.in/cms/small-is-bountiful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbasi (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BOX OFFICE FIGURES: Worldwide gross was 75 crore at the end of 3 weeks. The film ran for more than twice that amount of time. This article at the end of the fourth week reported worldwide gross at 85 crores: http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/breaking-news.aspx?news_id=771 ; Given it ran for at least two more weeks, actual gross figures are higher. That's the last figure I see. I think 75 crore, which the sources specifically say was the gross collection at 3 weeks, is inaccurate. 85 crore is a more accurate estimate given how much longer the film ran than 3 weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.117.10 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

In fact the dialogue says that America is multi-linguistic country same as India and even without knowing English in America and Hindi in India...you can communicate and survive.(I am also an Indian citizen and find objection at the wrong interpretation of the so called Dialogue by the fellow objecting citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.49.177 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tampering with my additions

[edit]

My contributions to the page regarding the controversy were deleted arbitrarily. This is against Wikipedia terms and conditions. Such tampering will be reported. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not an advertising portal of your movie. If you have any questions about my edits, raise it here in the talk page. ಕಿರಣ (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+++REPLY TO ABOVE+++ Your additions rely on a facebook page and petition created by the same group as a reference. This is a highly biased source and until a neutral, reputed public broadcaster or media reports it, this section should be removed. Else the warning included now at the top of the section should remain. Wikipedia readers have a right to the whole truth, not just your interpretation of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.227.122.124 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The “contributions” were highly synthesized and biased comments based on primary source material that's not even vaguely reliable. I have removed it, and since you're already at 3R, will report any further action on this as an edit war. Kerfuffler (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So you guys are saying all I need is some money to buy the media, like you have, to keep Wikipedia an encyclopaedia. That's really nice. I'm giving up on this because the war is not one of editing. It's one of morality. There you will lose in the days to come. ಕಿರಣ (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying you need to follow WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. These are very core principles on Wikipedia. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everything posted in the article is original research. The sources cited are all funded and financed by the makers of the movie. And it was I who was trying to bring neutrality to the article. So it's not me who needs to be given the lecture about NOR, RS and NPOV. It's those who are deleting my additions. ಕಿರಣ (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article is moderately well referenced, and generally does not constitute original research. Wikipedia is not the place for fringe conspiracy theories. And neutrality is not created by rumor mongering. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Fringe conspiracy theories', 'rumor mongering'. That's original research. Which 'reputed public broadcaster or media' has reported it so? - ಕಿರಣ (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to post conspiracy theories about the Indian media, it's up to you to prove it, not me. As for rumor mongering, I'm being charitable. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're doing a great job keeping Wikipedia encyclopaedic. I accept my mistake of trying to challenge encyclopaedic knowledge about what constitutes the truth in India, on an encyclopaedia. Good bye, and good luck. - ಕಿರಣ (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All i can say is the makers of English Vinglish are the real racist... Veera Kannadiga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.49.90 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

[edit]

This article in its present form has a somewhat promotional tone; and the English is a bit grammatically off in spots. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, I've tried to correct this as much as I can without taking out huge chunks. Incidentally, can anyone find original quotes (as opposed to reports about it) where several international media outlets have "hailed Sridevi as India's Meryl Streep"? Also, the last two film reviews quoted (i.e. the only non-Indian ones) seem rather non-notable and cherry-picked. Can anyone add some reputable ones? Feudonym (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have picked the quote from IBTimes 'The film received rave reviews at 2012 Toronto International Film Festival with international media calling Sridevi as the "Meryl Streep of India". However i couldn't find who exactly compared her with Meryl streep.But I think International Business Times is a good enough reference . The article has also gone through several modification since the time POV tag was given.I request other reviewers to look into the article and remove the tag soon, as it would help in upgrading the Articles quality scale. --Naveed (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relaibilty of the post stating the first look released date.

[edit]

i have researched from all the official self published post of eros international and english vinglish (the movie) facebook page, youtube channel, twitter account that the first look was published on 14th june where as the media after getting this info released in their press on 15th june that the first look is released. so do the media be followed or the owner of the movie original official post to .. along with one more free website bolg published the same on 14th june itself following are links all these pages allong where https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=369516829778992&set=a.369516826445659.87513.361051343958874&type=1&relevant_count=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L-yil-0MQU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekdalmias (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/EnglishVinglish/status/213328996836970497/photo/1

http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/movie-stills/first-look-poster-sridevis-english-vinglish

vkdlms (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with neutrality

[edit]

The tag is musguiding in my opinion. There is no issue of neutrality. I wish to remove the tag. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. If anyone has any objection please discuss in the talk page before inserting anything.--Naveed (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception of soundtrack

[edit]

I've removed it because it was sourced with (spammed) blogs and other questionable sources. Looks like the editors adding the material were more interested in promoting the sources than adding any encyclopedic information.

If a section like this belongs at all in this article, it would contain widely-acknowledged awards that the soundtrack has received, and perhaps some supporting reviews by widely-acknowledged reviewers. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

Dear editors if you have reviews on the movie please do not add in the lead unless its a HUGE RECORD like highest grossing film of all time. you can add them in the reception after release section instead. I am moving all the reviews into the reception section. If anyone has any quarries please discuses it here.Naveed (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on English Vinglish. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on English Vinglish. 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:

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) 07:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

The article List of accolades received by English Vinglish should be merged into this article. This seems fairly uncontroversial but I thought it would benefit by discussion.

Notifying top non-bot editors >2% by edit or text:

Notified Projects:

Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very reasonable merge. Both articles are short enough that putting the Accolades article into the existing Reception section should work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it with the main article will destroy its chances of attaining FL status. This move is best discussed with FrB.TG, the creator of the list. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: As the creator of the list, I think it can be easily merged. I created it a few years ago, but it’s just too short, and hardly has any chance of becoming an FL (not that I ever intended making it one). FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The list is quite small. Should be merged Naveed (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Removing non-notable awards (i.e. ones that we don't have articles for) will make the list shorter. (There are lots of awards out there that are just small fry Mom-and-Pop money makers.) Also, the fear of losing Featured List status should not be a consideration in merge discussions. I understand the potential pride issues, but we should be doing what's best for the content, not for the people who produce the content. I see that it's a non-issue based on FrB.TG's response, but just wanted to throw that out there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The list is small and according to WP:SPLIT I think it can be merged. List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan was longer and still it was merged. This can be merged too. Vivek Ray (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for 199.55 crore gross claim?

[edit]

I see ₹199.55 crore listed as the gross in both the Infobox and the lead. Where is the reference for this? or are readers expected to plow through all of the figures in the box office section until they can Frankenstein together some sort of synthesised total that agrees with this figure?

Also in these edits I chopped this shit out of some of the puffery and hyperbole that had snuck in the article. There was far too much drool, and efforts to sweeten praise. Things like "widespread critical acclaim" or "high critical acclaim" vs "critical acclaim", or "the film performed exceptionally well" vs "performed well", stuff like that. Also gone: "The trade declared English Vinglish a box office hit", "English Vinglish was declared a blockbuster", or "Box Office India declared English Vinglish a hit overseas." These were cut for the usual reason: we don't regurgitate subjective, superlative declarations. We don't declare films "rotten" just because that's the phrasing Rotten Tomatoes uses. This crap violates WP:NPOV and just comes across as drooling fanboy promotion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cyphoid here... some claims in the article are promotional in nature besides being unsourced... WP:NPOV was violated at many places and is fixed by Cyphoid... rightly so.. Gross figure too appears to be inflated.. - Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cyphoidbomb and Adamstraw99: I went through the history of the article and found different claims about both budget and gross.
Budget: There was a figure of 15cr quoted as budget, citing this news article of Daily Mail. Then it was changed to 26cr, citing Box Office India. Some IP just changed it to 11cr without citation/edit summary over here.
Gross: Initially, gross was shown as 75cr, citing Koimoi. Koimoi is not RS according to WP:ICTFFAQ. Then it was changed to 85 cr, citing this website which doesn't seem to be a reliable source either. Changed to 114cr by an IP without any citation/edit summary. The figure was changed few more times. Here, the term 'see below' was introduced by Maestro2016, who then changed the gross to 90.55cr. Some IPv6 introduced this puff of "grossing ₹90.55 crore against a budget of ₹11 crore" over here. The gross was then increased without citation/edit summary by some IPv6 here, here and here.
I am changing the gross to 78.56cr as per Box Office India as BOI is RS according to WP:ICTFFAQ. I have also left a message to Maestro2016 to explain how he reached the figure of 90.55cr. Thanks. Vivek Ray (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting me to the discussion. The problem with Box Office India is that it does not include East Asia collections. So I had to add the East Asia collections separately. BOI gave an overseas figure of $4.85 million excluding East Asia. I added the $2,160,236 collections from the East Asia markets ($1.4 million in Japan, $300,000 in Taiwan, $230,871 in Hong Kong, $229,365 in Korea), giving an overseas total of $7,010,236, which is 37.45 crore at 2012 exchange rates. I then added this to BOI's domestic figure of 53.1 crore, giving a total of 90.55 crore. Maestro2016 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With my recent edit, I have added a table to give an overview of the box office gross. It is slightly different to my previous 90.55 crore number, as I've changed the Korea number to a more accurate figure from an official source. Maestro2016 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Vinglish&oldid=1207118041"