Talk:Jigarthanda (2014 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).

Restoring full plot

Most of the plot section was deleted by a user, with an aim (probably) to prevent spoilers. However most movie plot pages contain the full story rather than the setup to the climax (as was edited here). I have restored the full version now.

Lagadapaandi (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that Jigarthanda (soundtrack) be merged into this article. With the page of 48kb of this article, I think that the content in the soundtrack article (8kb) can easily be explained in the context of the movie article, and need not be forked. The soundtrack has not won any particular award as well. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then soundtrack images cannot be used in the main article per WP:NFCC. That is why a separate article for the soundtrack was created. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? You want another article so that you can use the image. Is that your best argument? - Vivvt (Talk) 07:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because a picture is worth a thousand words

. Ssven2, since you were among the earliest contributors to the soundtrack article, you are invited to share your views. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if not delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not particularly notable on its own. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would make the article too long and it has reliable sources coverage so is a valid stand alone article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: A combined article is well under 100k, and would be reasonable in terms of length. The soundtrack doesn't have independent notability, and there is a general principle that albums for films should be include on the film page unless there are other reasons for notability, which I can't see; for example, there is no non-routine coverage of the music independent of the film. This is on the basis that newspaper music reviews can be considered as routine. The argument based on the image seems spurious and the policy link doesn't support not merging.Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Merging AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– I don't think a fictional film can be the primary topic, when there is a real-life drink of the same name. Besides, there's also a 2016 film with the same name. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: page view statistics: [1] --Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support And make "Jigarthanda" the DAB, there is no clear PT as the film at the base name does not get overwhelmingly more views than the drink. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and move Jigarthanda (disambiguation) across base. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed split

Split Jigarthanda (2014 film) into Jigarthanda (2014 film) and List of accolades received by Jigarthanda. Current article is too lengthy and the awards section is not generalized. See discussion at Talk:Jigarthanda (2014 film)#Proposed split. 182.65.187.84 (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Have you created the draft yet? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:Yes. The draft has been created.171.61.154.134 (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the draft article. 171.61.154.134 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]