User talk:Haphar/Archive 1

User talk:Haphar/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Haphar/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PJM 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian film stubs

Thanks for contributing these articles. Please could you take a moment to format the articles according to the Wikipedia standard? The article should start with the name of the subject in bold. If you are going to leave a short article, you should also add a stub tag to it. I suggest {{indian-movie-stub}} Take a look at Guddi, which I have editied in this way. Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do what this guy said. Just look at one of your old articles in edit mode and you can see what we're talking about from our corrections. Bobak 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to various Bollywood-related articles

Haphar, I'm going to have to delete or rewrite most of what you contributed. You added a lot of material that's film magazine gossip; it's not verifiable and it's not encyclopedia material. Verifiable means that you have to be able to give references, say to a website or a book or a magazine article. Instead of saying that something is TRUE, we can then say that, "Filmfare magazine speculated that ... " Do you see the difference? We especially have to be careful talking about living people. Imagine how you'd feel if people put hurtful, false rumors about you on a website that millions of people used.

A lot of the material that's in the articles now isn't properly referenced, but that just means that it should be, not that we like articles without references.

In many cases, you've replaced grammatical English prose with fractured, ungrammatical prose. This is not helping us!

I don't want to discourage anyone who wants to help, because Indian cinema is such a huge subject. But it might be better if, instead of adding gossip to articles about current film stars, you did research and added articles on famous stars and movies of the past. Our coverage on recent stars and movies is OK -- our coverage of old Bollywood is horrible. Having something there, even if it's not perfect, is better than nothing.

We have a gatherplace for people working on Indian cinema: it's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cinema. Come visit there, sign up, meet the other editors working on films. Zora 10:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haphar, an encyclopedia covers more than current films -- it covers the past too. As for your edits -- it's very difficult talking to you about this, as I don't want to hurt your feelings, or be too critical. But you don't write very well! You are going into articles and just doing a "braindump" -- writing anything that comes to mind about those films, or those actors, and putting it anyplace you please. It is often in ungrammatical, misspelled, substandard English. It is full of personal judgments about what is good or bad, judgments that not everyone shares and that should not be expressed as if they were the considered opinion of Wikipedia. (This is a hard rule to follow -- I keep breaking it, by praising films or songs I like. But not everyone shares my tastes. Other editors curb my excesses!)

The reason that I suggested working on subjects that don't already have articles is that this sort of thing doesn't matter as much in a completely new article. Someone else will be able to edit your materials into better form. See what I did with Yaadon Ki Baraat, for example. We needed an article on that movie, so it's just as well you started one. Just look for movies or actors with red links, look them up on IMDB and on the web, and write down what you can.

But when we have a perfectly good article, say the one about Amitabh, it doesn't help to fill it up with speculations about his love affairs. We do try to keep clear of personal lives, or be very careful talking about them, unlike the film columns. You may not know this, but Wikipedia was in the news lately. A well-known journalist named Siegenthaler complained about the article written about him -- it was full of false, hurtful information that someone had entered as a "joke". This was all over the newspapers and magazines. This was a warning to us at Wikipedia to respect verifiability and privacy.

I'm glad you're talking to me, instead of just leaving with hurt feelings. Bollywood is getting much more popular in the West, people want to find out about it, and we can help them. Giving information about fun old movies like Yaadon Ki Baraat is useful! Zora 11:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love affairs

I was the one who wrote the articles on Raj Kapoor and Nargis, and I was the one who included the info on their love affair. I thought that was OK because they were both DEAD. No one's feelings to be hurt. Also, the affair is so widely mentioned, and so accepted as fact, that I didn't see any problem with verifiability.

An anon recently edited the Dimple Kapadia article to say that she was widely rumoured to be Nargis and Raj's love-child. I've heard the rumour too, but I took it out of the article. Dimple is alive, to be hurt by allegations. Furthermore, there's really been no verification of the rumours. I hope you see a difference.

I think we've mentioned AB's affair with Rekha, but I think we just said that it's a rumour. Both people are still alive, as is Jaya, and unless there's something more than gossip, we have to be careful. As for Parveen Babi -- I dunno about that affair. It's certainly possible. Just that we don't have anything other than film-column gossip to prove it.

BTW, I spend too much time working on the Bollywood articles, but I'm not the boss. No one's the boss. As you'll see if you look at the talk page for our Wikiproject, the person I respect is Gurubrahma. He can usually change my mind. So it goes by respect here, not by position. Zora 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tei Bachchan

The info you wanted to include re AB's mother is nothing that I've heard -- but then, I've only been watching and learning about Bollywood for the past five years or so. I'm a gora. But I seem to have picked up a lot of the old gossip just by reading Rediff and Upperstall, so I really WOULD like a reference to Tei, and the love marriage bit. All that should probably go in the article on AB's father. I assume there is one, though I haven't worked on it. Surely there must be something on a website, or published, that would verify this. A quote from Kabir's biography of AB, which I haven't read? Zora 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra

We HAD a pefectly good article. A lot of your additions were badly written and unreferenced, so I reverted to a good version. It is WORK to rewrite, and in the meantime, something that makes us look bad is up there. Try introducing that material bit by bit, slowly, and we can edit it into shape.

Badly-written material can be reworked, but there's a limited number of good editors. Zora 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Upperstall article. You're cutting and pasting material from there. That is NOT OK. Zora 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AB article not a copyvio

Haphar, I know the AB article isn't a copyvio, because I wrote it. Or I wrote a version that has been modified by other editors. What happens is that as soon as a WP article is written, it gets copied by other sites. Word for word, and because we're free for the taking, we can't object. So other people are trying to make money from your hard work. Zora 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India related links

	Links for Wikipedians interested in India content
Newcomers: Welcome kit \| Register: Indian Wikipedians \| Network: Noticeboard (WP:INWNB) Browse: India \| Open tasks \| Deletions Contribute content: Wikiportal India - Indian current events (WP:INCE) India collaboration of the week (WP:INCOTW) - Category adoptions

Please use edit summaries and Show preview button more often. Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hi and welcome. You're a new user and new users make mistakes—look at my first edits. So, I want to give you some tips on making sure your edits are good ones. Here goes:

Movie titles are italicized. If it is the reference it the beginning of the article they are also bolded. This edit shows you bolding the title while this edit shows me adding the italics to a few.

Also, you added the disambiguation template to that page when it is not really a disambiguation page. A dismbiguation page is "a list of articles associated with the same title". Therefore, you would only make it a disambiguation page if you had Aankhen (1968 film) and Aankhen (2002 film) as sub articles. This is what I did on Waqt with its ambiguous articles Waqt (1965 film) and Waqt (2005 film). Notice that there is a short sentence and not two full articles on the same page. To remedy that you should either make two separate pages or put it together on a single page like Devdas was on this version.

Be careful when you edit. In this edit you separate my reference from what it was referencing. the <ref> tag is meant to help with sourcing articles so they can be verifiable.

You also need to know your limitations. Simply, you have problems with English. In this edit you say "it was a pioneer in terms of it's multi star cast and started the trend of multi starrers." In my edit I fixed some of the language and made the reference work again. Note: my writing is not superb, but it is clear and proper in modern parlance even if not always grammatically sound. So, please take this into account. There are simple things you can edit but don't write prose outside of your ability.

Pay attention and format. In this edit you added a link to an IMDB address that was already on the page. Template:imdb name links to IMDB so adding another link is redundant you also didn't format your link. Format them by doing [http://address/ title]. Play around in the Wikipedia:Sandbox to text out syntax and use the "show preview" button before editing. See this edit for how I formatted it some.

Source your work. Most things should be sourced. If it's from IMDb there should be an IMDB link in the infobox. Also take things from reputable sources and if you can find a bunch in one good source then you don't need to cite 20 random sites filled with ads.

So, please... take some of this advice and try to improve. If your English isn't up to the task don't make the edit. You can also consult on talk pages before editing and someone can check your English to help. Thanks and goodluck. gren グレン 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop make anymore pages into disambiguation pages when they're not really. You seem well intentioned but it just makes it messy. To create it you need to have a fair amount of information and make a disambiguation page like I showed you with Waqt. gren グレン 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you link a name. Notice that above it is already link. You shouldn't link the same things twice so close to each other since it only serves to make it harder to read. Try to limit linking to once per section in the body text. gren グレン 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and probably most importantly... don't paste material from other sites. That's plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation. We don't accept that here and if you do it anymore I may have to block you. gren グレン 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm leaving lots of messages... but... I see you've been mentioning Om Prakash in a lot of film articles. Please don't add him unduly to articles. If he is listed as notable source it. It seems that you are adding it because you like him and we don't want to make articles biased... gren グレン 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Khan

Hello, Haphar,

I cleaned the article on Sanjay Khan - most information was contributed by you, I just put it in order. Hope you don't mind. :) Best regards, --Plumcouch 23:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's okay. I made lots of mistakes in the beginning, too, and ruined the Aishwarya Rai article in the process. ^^ Anyway, have fun - and if there's anything I can help you with, don't hesitate and ask - I don't bite. :) Best regards, --Plumcouch 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sashadhar

Hi. Yeah sure, me and Plumcouch were trying to find as much information on the Mukherjee clan. Were trying to find out who Rani Mukerji's grandfather is....Anywayz will add more info on the guy. Regards Pa7 10:56, 14 April 2006.

Im just sorting out some things with Sashadhar Mukherjee's article, will start Joy Mukherjee soon. If you find any links please add and make sure you put in any relevant info. Regards Pa7 11:16, 14 April 2006

Plagiarism

It still isn't a good idea to put accusations of plagiarism in the short potted reviews. We have a new article, Bollywood and plagiarism, just for such accusations. You put the film on the list and then put the accusations in the article on the film. Accusations must be backed by a published reference (no original research) but seems as if Chori Chori meets that standard easily.

If you're up for some hard work, expanding that plagiarism list, and finding the citations, might just be your cup of chai. Zora 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was too mean

Your method is absolutely correct and I'm a mean bad Zora. I should have checked. I'm sorry. Zora 10:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film clans

Hey Hapher, you said there was still some things that needed to be corrected. I'll try and find more info but please put in the things that are missing. The page still needs tweaking, will do asap. Cheers. Pa7 15:04, 02 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism accusations

Haphar, we had some rules about making accusations and you don't seem to be following them. There had to be an outside source, like a review, saying that there was plagiarism, and there had to be discussion, with pros and cons, in the article for the movie. You seem to be just putting up claims of plagiarism based on your own decisions re similarity. That would be original research.

Also we can't say that the film was plagiarized, or was a remake; we can only say that it is accused of plagiarism. Otherwise we could be setting WP up for legal trouble. Suppose someone made a frivolous accusation of plagiarism and someone else sued WP for slander? We do have to be careful.

I thought at first that you might be in the middle of adding the info to the movie articles, but all I see is new claims being added, but no references and no pros and cons. Zora 17:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "inspirations" belong on the plagiarism page. If all that is being used is the general idea, well, that's par for the course for ANY creative endeavour. Whole US television series get contracts on the basis of presentations like, "Well, it's like those successful home makeover shows, but it's about automobiles!" If an Indian historical is a big hit (Lagaan), then somebody has to make Ashoka. I think it would be OK to mention something like that on the article page (Like the recently popular Lagaan, this film is a historical ...) but not on the plagiarism page. And it would be best to avoid words like "copy of" and "remake of". That's also a reason to use the pro and con format. "Like Kramer vs. Kramer, this film (Akele Hum Akele Tum) is about a family where the mother leaves, and a previously distant father has to care for his young son. Like KvK, this film has a scene in which the father fails ludicrously at cooking eggs. However, much of the plot, and the ending, have been changed." After all, most Hollywood plots need a little tweaking to make them fit the Bollywood formula.

I've seen lots of Bollywood fans make sweeping pronouncements about plagiarism, accusing just about every movie released of plagiarism, and that's really too broad. That's precisely what we want to avoid here. If only to keep WP out of lawsuits. So let's just be very careful to have an outside accusation in place, lists of pros and cons on the plagiarism, and make a distinction between inspiration and plagiarism. Zora 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waqt (1965 film)

I have reverted your edits there... here is my explanation. "Starring" is meant to be the main stars. If you want to do a cast list that's another matter but. The stars are not the secondary or tertiary characters. Honestly, I don't know that movie but are those all main characters that the movie focuses on? An example would be that there are only 3 main character in Kuch Kuch Hota Hai although Shahrukh's daughter young Anjali is important she is not in a starring role. If you want to add a cast section feel free to but I wouldn't add non primary characters to film infoboxes. Thanks. gren グレン 06:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are convinced that they are all main actors then re-add it... but, the issue is that we had on Harry Potter people adding more than Harry, Ron, and Hermione to the "starring" list on the template.... and... it just elongates teh template to an ungodly length when you add so many people. It should be who is billed as the stars of the film. Who is on the DVD cover (granted I know many of the Indian releases I have don't have names on the cover) but that is how I would judge the issue. If you think they all deserve to be there I won't challenge it since I haven't seen it... but, if you add it like that to a movie I have seen and I disagree then I will be able to argue a little more. Does that make sense? The issue is that the "starring" field is meant for the stars... not just everyone who seems somewhat important. Thanks. gren グレン 07:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clans

Hey Haphar, are you talking about this Shekhar Kapur. He is married to that actress in Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa, i cannot remember her name.. Anywayz just have look at the article about Shekhar Kapoor, if it is that person related to Dev Anand, i'll add it. I need to also add Anupam Kher's family as well. Let me know. Pa7 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Mukerji's page

Hey! I agree with you to a a certain extent. Anyway, hear me out! I think it is unfair to have a TEMPTATIONS reference on the other actor's pages and not have it on rani's. it is discriminational. another thing: i believe it's not a fanta publicity thing that is the main purpose. rani has many endorsements on hand but as an example fanta is the most illustrative and it's what she's famous for in India. I think the page is not supposed to have only the most important things on it. there are some trivial things put onto the page as to refer to minority groups who come on the page and want to be aware of that fact. anyway, i've realized what you meant about the awards section. it's better to divide them into two sections. therefore, i've let them be like you left them. now, you should let my things remain there since we already have a lot of editors on her page and it will only create conflicts. You are new on the page. You don't know what we've gone through. shez15Ü 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Names

I am not obsessed or trying to put Rani before anyone else. It's only credit I'm giving importance to. Just so you know, she was senior to Vivek Oberoi in Saathiya and if you see the movie, her name appears before him. Vivek was a newcomer then. When Hum Tum happened, she was much more popular than flop actor Saif Ali Khan who gained accolades only after the movie. As far is Paheli concerned, Amitabh Bachchan and Juhi Chawla had a cameo so you can't put them before Rani and also because the story was only about Rani's life. And for Veer-Zaara, go ahead look at the official website and the movie, credits name her before Preity. The intro has her appearance before Shah Rukh because she is telling the story of Veer-Zaara at present time after 22 years. Therefore, it doesn't allow her to be put before Shah Rukh. It's the credits that are important. Lastly, I look at all criterias before putting Rani where she is put. You have to look at the length of the role, seniority and stardom status while putting people in order. Thanks! Do not change anything. It was like this until Zora came. She hates Rani Mukerji. Can't you see what she recently did to her page. She doesn't care or put any importance to it. She just simply wants to give no importance to Rani which is unfair. She has an extreme biased opinion. If you look at statistics today, Rani is the most successful actress after Kajol's leave. Let me teach you history, it was Sridevi then Madhuri Dixit. Then came Juhi Chawla and Karisma Kapoor but faded soon. Kajol was the reigning queen of bollywood until she took a break. Aishwarya Rai gained popularity after her leave but now, she's been giving flops post Devdas. Preity Zinta came for a while. She had one great year: 2003. That's it. When Veer-Zaara happened, she gave a flop: Dil Ne Jise Apna Kaha. She had only Salaam Namaste in 2005. In fear of failure, she only signed one good movie. But if you look at Rani's career. Each year has been a hit for her after Saathiya. The last two years has been extremely favorable. This year is going to be another success. She is at the top. You guys should read Filmfare Magazine more often, Bollywood's most prestigious and most trustworthy magazine. You'll know then. Thanks! shez15Ü 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it!

I don't think you will get the concept. Have you seen Dil Ne Jise Apna Kaha? In the credits, Preity's name comes before Bhoomika Chawla even though Chawla is the lead actress. Preity dies before the intermission. So you see, it has nothing to do with having the lead role or not, the point is, at the end of the day, it's about how the film credited the artists due to whatever reason. I think wikipedia ought to follow these rules and stick to them rather than create new problems. Just rent Veer-Zaara and see how the credits go in the beginning. Or better, go to the credits section of the movie's official website and read carefully who comes on top of whom. It's pointless debating. We have different thinkings. We can argue for two weeks. Let's just be reasonable and put the artists' names as listed by the film maker himself so to be unbiased. By the way, i agree with you on products publicity. You can remove Fanta from Rani's page. I just wanted to list an example. All right then. shez15Ü 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Khanna

I removed the long list of "notable films" from the career section. That list was just too long. IMHO, if it's more than three films, we haven't picked the best ones. All those films are in the filmography and we don't need two lists.

In the course of removing the list, I removed the material re the awards. Do you think you'd have time to do an awards section for Khanna? That's a lot better than putting it in the text.

I'm not an expert on the films of the 1970s and 1980s, and have only seen a few Khanna films, so I'm going to trust your judgment as to which three films were really crucial for his career. Zora 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Instead of just saying that he generated hysteria (which I didn't know), describe what people actually did. Beatles stuff? Screaming and fainting? The South Indian crazed fan stuff, puja for the success of his films, breaking coconuts, rioting? Links to newspaper and magazine articles, if any can be found. Zora 10:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz

Thanks for the page! Still, Rani looks prettier to me! --Aminz 07:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City names

Hi Haphar. I've replied at Talk:Mumbai]. I do agree that a firm standard needs to be evolved. Let's take the discussion forward at the appropriate project page. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjeeta

Hi, regarding Ranjeeta; I know her full name is Ranjeeta Kaur, and that her name has also been written as Ranjita in movies. You could try using these different names when you search for her, maybe in relation with her most famous movies. --Dhirad 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.P. Singh

I take it, you think Mr. Singh is notable. If I were to put him up on AfD for being a NN businessman, how would you vote? Your answer will help me decide whether to take this to AfD or not. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't see the stuff you added... makes sense. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikhs

Hello Haphar. I'm sorry, but I have no intention of steamrolling you at all over the matter of Sikh cricketers. I removed the religion cats, and you reverted them now and would like discussion, so this is fine. I haven't removed the categories from Harbhajan Singh again. You stated that you wanted the cat kept because you thought maybe it was unfair that Zaheer Khan had his muslim cat so I removed that, but I haven't removed any of the Sikh cats. I've been told before when I started here not to use the religion cats unless it is VERY RELEVANT to public life, so generally I have never used and not many people do. I will be sticking to 1RR and am waiting to see what other people think about the cat - I will not be removing the Sikh cats, and this has nothing to do with my preference for any religion, as I have removed Parsi, Muslim, Hindu cats also. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yuvraj Singh

Hi Haphar- Thanks for your comment. Yuvraj Singh is actually a Sikh; his father Yograj Singh is a Sikh while his mother Shabnum Singh is Hindu. RamanVirk 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haphar, You can visit the following site for verification - [1]. One thing more, one of my cousins, who is from Chandigarh, is known to Yuvraj's brother (who is a sikh). Yuvraj lives with his mother at Panchkula near Chandigarh. RamanVirk 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Singh's father is a Hindu Jat and yes, his mother is a hindu. Therefore Yuvraj is not a sikh! His father's original surname is Bhundel, which is a Rajput surname...and hence Yuvraj has taken on the name, Singh.