Talk:Sarocharu

	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: Andhra Pradesh / 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 WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Rename the article?

Hello, I want to move the page from "Sir Vachaaru" to something on the lines of "Sarocharu". The meaning will remain the same but would make the title closer to how it is being spelled in the posters ( in Telugu). The new poster that has been released has the words "Sir" and "Vachaaru" combined to single word. Also i noticed that, the word "Sir" has been spelled very differently in the poster than how it should be. One other main reason was that the media and webpages(TOI, 123 Telugu, Ragalahari etc) are referring it as something similar to "Sarocharu" or "Saarocharu". I am confused whether to do the move or let it remain as the meaning would remain unchanged. Please leave your opinions. Thanks, krZna (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About renaming

Hello krishna. First of all i appreciate you for sharing your thoughts and opinions with other users before renaming the article. I think its unnecessary to move the article name to "Sir Vachaaru". Because the title in telugu is in clubbed form i.e., " సారొచ్చారు ". So rather than moving to "Sir Vachaaru" move the name to "Sarocharu". I think this is enough than the existing title "Saaroccharu". Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 11:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Following this revert, the article does not comply with MOS:NUM. Currently, dmy dates co-exist once again with mdy dates dates in the article, but they should not. Examination of the earliest version would indicate that dmy dates should prevail because it was adopted as the first significant edit. Furthermore, the overriding principle according to Wikipedia convention is that Indian articles should use dmy format. That format should be applied to all dates on this article. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS Acceptable Date Formats D MMMM YYYY, MMMM D, YYYY and D MMM YYYY are acceptable Everywhere in Wiki article's but MMM D, YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD in references, tables, lists or areas where conciseness is needed :) Raghusri (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this brought up on WP:3O. My opinion is that all dates in an article should follow a uniform format. Since "all dates" includes both those included in the article text and those in the references, it leaves us with just D MMMM YYYY and MMMM D, YYYY per MOS:DATEFORMAT. I think this article has strong national ties to India (which I conclude by comparing the gross revenues of the film in its home country and the US cited in the article), I think WP:STRONGNAT applies here. According to the map on Date format by country, the DMY format is most common in India, which leaves us with just one option: D MMMM YYYY. I hope my argumentation appears conclusive. --Koveras ^☭ 18:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is : In an Indian Article, per MOS Acceptable Date Formats, Strong NAT and Ties we have to use DMY Format only :) Raghusri (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem personally with DMY. Isn't that what Ohconfucius harmonised here? And you were rude to me on my talk page. Why? Tony (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't behaved rudely with you in your Talk page, you misunderstood me :) Raghusri (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]