Talk:Guptodhoner Sandhane

	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 WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian C‑class

	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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Reversions

@AnkurWiki: I don't see that you opened a discussion here to discuss these reversions[1][2]. Per WP:BRD, when bold changes you make[3][4] are reverted, the onus is on you to open a discussion to seek consensus for the version you prefer. Since you didn't do that, I'm doing that for you.

Re: your first reversion where you reinstated tabular formatting for the cast, you wrote, "as most of the films article have this type of tables". Can you please point me in the direction of the multitude of quality articles you're referring to that use tabular formatting instead of prose? Because when I pick a few GA ("Good Articles") at random, like Ant-Man (film), Avengers: Age of Ultron, Bajirao Mastani, and Captain America: Civil War, I find the use of prose when including character descriptions. Occasionally someone may use tabular format like at Boruto: Naruto the Movie, but the choice for that was likely to make it easier to see who voiced the Japanese cast and popular English dub. But The Martian (film), Neerja, Oppam, Srimanthudu all have prose lists. Maybe you have a different opinion on what "most of the films articles" means?

Re: your second reversion, where you reinstated an album ratings table in a section on the film's critical response, you wrote, "Most of the films article have thus types of table and the film needs this table for reception info." Using the very same links I provided above, would you please show me which ones are using album ratings templates to communicate the film's critical response? And would you please show me where at MOS:FILM it encourages the use of album ratings templates to communicate critical response? You will not find that there, because it's ridiculous to use an album template to describe a film's critical response. Do you see the problem? Here are the other problems with that content: We don't use audience ratings culled from sites like IMDb and Bookmyshow. Audience website votes can be manipulated, so there's no presumption of accuracy of any kind. See MOS:FILM#Audience response. So that would eliminate both the Bookmyshow data as well as the IMDb data. The Cinestaan data was not properly represented. You reported two stars, when it's actually one star. If you want any of this content to be present in the article, you need to convert it to prose. Did you even look to see how it rendered on the page? The Reception section appears blank, and the table appears at the bottom right of the page, mixed in with the references. Sloppy. Note also that WikiProject Film doesn't typically do critic ratings. Editors are encouraged to summarise and extract relevant quotes to paint a portrait of critical response. Only because Indian film article editors are divorced from the main WikiProject Film do critic ratings appear in Indian film articles. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's preferred. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: The purpose of this table is good style. It is not written anywhere that we can not use a table for defining cast of a film. In a table it looks better than the general.

Ok! If we do not use audience ratings from IMDb, bookmyshow etc, then remove the ratings table. In Kahani etc articles I saw these types of tables containing ratings. So I reinstalled that.

AnkurWiki (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC) AnkurHow 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AnkurWiki: "The purpose of this table is good style. It is not written anywhere that we can not use a table for defining cast of a film. In a table it looks better than the general." Wait a second, you said "most of the films article have this type of tables", but you didn't substantiate that. Are you now pivoting to a new argument, "is not written anywhere that we can not use a table"? You neither have consensus for the unnecessary extra formatting, nor did you adequately establish that it is preferred by the community. And I'll point out that the Kahani article doesn't have the unnecessary table for cast.

As for the ratings table, I'm curious how you were able to incorrectly report the Cinestaan rating here and at Alinagarer Golokdhadha. In both cases you inflated the ratings by one whole star. The (albeit useless) IMDb rating you reported as 7.3 is actually 7.1. Any idea how these inflations happened? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb:Actually I saw those types of tables (in cast) in some articles that I have forgot now (not in Indian articles). But I could not understood why we cannot use such table for casting? (Remove the table but please lead me the cause).

And I wanted to say about the ratings table in Kahani movie.

I did never want to give false ratings in the table. It can be happened that in that time (when I created that article or added reception info)the rating was two (for Alinagarer Golokdhadha) and after more ratings it changed to one. Same can happen for the IMDB.

AnkurWiki (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tables discourage the addition of real-world content, like what you find at Avengers: Age of Ultron, where character names, actors and descriptions are also accompanied by real-world information about how the actors conceived of their performances, etc. When you create a table (which is purely aesthetic), you are creating a visual constraint of the content that can be included, since most people would assume that a notes section should be brief, as is evident from your use of incomplete sentences and parentheticals.

Actor	Character	Notes
Arjun Chakraborty	Abir	Nephew of Sonada (due to a little age difference, he considers Sonada as a brother)
Robert Downey Jr.	Tony Stark / Iron Man	The benefactor of the Avengers,[8][9][10] who is a self-described genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist with electromechanical suits of armor of his own invention.[11] On how his character evolves after the events of Iron Man 3, Downey said, "I think he realizes that tweaking and making all the suits in the world—which is what he has been doing—still didn't work for that thing of his tour of duty that left him a little PTSD. So his focus is more on how can we make it so that there's no problem to begin with. That, you know, there's a bouncer at our planet's rope. That's the big idea."12

Writing in prose, as we do in most film articles, creates a more intuitive space for writing longer content. Indian film articles in particular suffer from lack of content. Cast lists almost never contain real-world information about casting or any of that. But creating a giant box that suggests "don't add any more" isn't always helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]