Talk:Oru Vadakkan Selfie

	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).

Blockbuster/Superhit

In this edit I have removed promotional fluff content in agreement with this edit by TheRedPenOfDoom. Blockbuster, superhit, hit, blah blah blah are all terminologies used to promote or trash films. There is no clear encyclopedic meaning to "Blockbuster" or "Super hit" and we shouldn't be using this phrasing as though these labels are facts and giving undue weight to one or two periodicals' opinions. If X periodical decides, based on their home-grown rating system to call a film a "hit" or a "super hit" or a "blockbuster", that's fine, but then we need to directly attribute that label to the source and present it as a quote. "X periodical called the film a super-hit for selling NNN million tickets". Such a statement would belong in a Critical reception section along with other content that balances the viewpoint. Beyond that, the inclusion is promotional fluff and needs to go. Just like we would never say about a western film, "Jupiter Ascending was rotten" simply because Rotten Tomatoes found the film to have received a generally negative critical response. We've talked about this a few times at the Indian Cinema Task Force. If the argument is that since it's sourced it should be included, may I point you to WP:V a policy that states unambiguously, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb Then why this "blockbuster" and puffery in this article is kept even with a box office figure from a source with unverified reliability ??, few months ago there went a war and finally the content was kept without consensus.--27.97.24.155 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27.97.24.156, you are asking me to explain why somebody else did something? I can only speculate, Could be anything. Good faith mistake? Good faith ignorance? Overzealousness? Maybe a paid editor who's on a campaign to promote the film? Who knows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]