Talk:Happy Wedding (2016 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Box office

Happy wedding 2nd day Box Office Collection :- 3.01 Cr Approx Dabishdab (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabishdab: - Thanks for providing this info, but in order this info to be added, you will have to provide reliable sources. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 08:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Lots of IP edits regarding the plot of this film. Can anyone come and provide a solid approach to this? Let's not add comparison with other films. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 10:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For plot see : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_Wedding&diff=736130738&oldid=736130403

Deleted and page protected by film sales promotion wiki registered employees, possibly an another incidence of wiki-lawyering and joined gaming the system.

Evident from trend: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-08-25&end=2016-08-31&pages=Happy_Wedding

Cyphoidbomb knows NeilN is an administrator and anyone can check whether he is involved with Indian films section and the answer they would get is Not relevant. The rest seems to be a rant with similar warped logic that goes along the above lines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.21.107 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that NeilN is an Indian film sales promotion registered employee? He's the admin who semi-ed the article. What evidence do you have to that effect? If none, then refrain from espousing paranoid hypotheses, because they can constitute personal attacks. The plot that was removed is problematic because someone thought to include interpretation about the film's alleged similarity to two other films. There are also grammatical issues and the plot doesn't clearly indicate the the general framework of the film's story. It should have a beginning, middle and end. Sometimes the simplest answer is the most reasonable answer: it's a confusing plot summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected because you were edit warring and did not join the discussion on this talk page. [1] You need to address Nairspecht's concerns, not posit some conspiracy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]