This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mother India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mother India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2013. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Image:Mother india (dvd cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – MuZemike 20:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall, it's fairly well-written, and, after taking some time to look at the sources, most everything seems to be properly verified. I went through and made some minor grammar/punctuation tweaks as well as remove some noun plus '-ing' and other wordy stuff. Just a couple of minor issues before I go ahead and pass for GA:
On hold pending resolution to the three issues noted above. Otherwise, it's pretty good so far; if you can expand a bit more and tie down all the MoS stuff, this could conceivably make a run for WP:FAC. – MuZemike 20:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Thanks for your edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we follow the following for consistency:
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am adding references that feel may be questioned (not reliable accusations) at a FAC here. We can discuss and remove it.
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
IMO, we need to rewrite this one in a shorter and compact format. WP:UNDUE. Statements like "Mayo singled out the "rampant" and fatally weakening sexuality" sound like an accusation, we need to mellow this down in a neutral way. May be "Mayo was accused of singling out ... " -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think much of it preceded what I'd written. Feel free to remove anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
IMO, as in Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), we should split Reception into
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we have enough information to have such a section? Else let us merge it with "cast". Putting "casting" information in "cast" for now. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Premier suggests a large event to mark the release. So is premier right or release/open should be used? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am changing to present city names and location names and adding (then called) on first instance. New names include: Mumbai, Kolkata, Maharashtra, Gujarat.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Excited to see the hard work of editors on old but important movie of bollywood. Rather than jumping into editing I would like to suggest here, though its not much necessary.
The lead shall specify about her (Radha's) struggle was after her husband tragedy and left the family, Though the section Plot mentions it but we can write it in few words in the lead.
The current lead read as:
It can be written as:
Or something similar, so that the readers will get the clear concept of movie and her (Radha's) struggle to raise the children in the absence of husband. Hope i am clear to put the point. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion 2
Hi sorry to bother you all again, another suggestion is at the section Reception's subsection Release.
the sentence read as:
I think we should replace "Karnataka (then called Mysore State)" to just "Karnataka" because the film was released in October 1957 and at that time the state was already called Karnataka. According to article Karnataka it was "formed in November 1956 and the state name Mysore was renamed to Karnataka since 1973". Hope it helps, Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 15:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA! A few suggestions that I couldn't find time to give at the FAC:
I know this is a contentious topic, so I will try to keep it brief. I recently edited this article and changed a few instances of the term "Bollywood" to "Hindi film"/"Hindi Language film" as syntactically/semantically appropriate that were reverted (in good faith) by Redtigerxyz (who gave me the benefit of doubt as well). He/she may have noticed that I didn't change all instances, but left many instances of the term (Bollywood) in the article alone, either because of the context or when they were in a title/reference (naturally). The film in this article and the artists significantly predate the term Bollywood, including all the events described therein. My edits preserve the redirects correctly, e.g. Hindi Film which internally redirects to Bollywood, so there are no broken links etc. What is the general consensus on referring to the films/artists/personalities etc of the yore when the term Bollywood was simply not in existence? For instance, I wouldn't consider replacing the term Bollywood for anything modern (say after 1980 or even a little before), regardless of my personal preferences, but for anything before 1970 Bollywood is an inaccurate appellation. Bmurthy ( talk) 01:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Kailash29792: Actually I've now seen that the source says "calendars"; my fix was correct. Google Books search. I'm not sure how a "representation of Mother India" would be displayed on a paper-making machine! -- John of Reading ( talk) 19:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, Mother India has a Tamil remake titled Punniya Boomi (Sources: This book and this article) and a Telugu one titled Bangaru Thalli ( Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, p. 112). Where will information on them fit in this article? Kailash29792 ( talk) 15:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Mother India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
According to the Indian copyright act of 1957, all movies become part of the public domain 60 years after publication at the latest. In 2018, it would concern all indian films released in 1957 which includes Mother India. I'm quite uncertain if the 1957 dispositions still holds (even though there doesn't seem to have been a major reform regarding copyright length since then), but if true we would be able to import the film on Commons and display illustrations/exceprts on the article… Alexander Doria ( talk) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mother India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "boi57":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I converted the "Bibliography" section to a subsection per MOS:BIB. As a section it is misplaced normally belonging first in the appendices in biographies or "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography". As sourcing, along with text source integrity presents citations so related deserving a subsection. Otr500 ( talk) 03:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
With a budget of within ₹40 lakh, Mother India could not have been the most expensive Indian film to that point, as Box Office India says Jhansi Ki Rani (1953) was made at a budget of ₹60 lakh. Redtigerxyz, please make necessary amendments. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Are wp pages supposed to have the entire film on the film's page? Isn't this copyright violation of some form or the other? Tetrahedron17 ( talk) 15:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mother India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mother India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2013. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Image:Mother india (dvd cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – MuZemike 20:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall, it's fairly well-written, and, after taking some time to look at the sources, most everything seems to be properly verified. I went through and made some minor grammar/punctuation tweaks as well as remove some noun plus '-ing' and other wordy stuff. Just a couple of minor issues before I go ahead and pass for GA:
On hold pending resolution to the three issues noted above. Otherwise, it's pretty good so far; if you can expand a bit more and tie down all the MoS stuff, this could conceivably make a run for WP:FAC. – MuZemike 20:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Thanks for your edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we follow the following for consistency:
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am adding references that feel may be questioned (not reliable accusations) at a FAC here. We can discuss and remove it.
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
IMO, we need to rewrite this one in a shorter and compact format. WP:UNDUE. Statements like "Mayo singled out the "rampant" and fatally weakening sexuality" sound like an accusation, we need to mellow this down in a neutral way. May be "Mayo was accused of singling out ... " -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think much of it preceded what I'd written. Feel free to remove anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
IMO, as in Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), we should split Reception into
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we have enough information to have such a section? Else let us merge it with "cast". Putting "casting" information in "cast" for now. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Premier suggests a large event to mark the release. So is premier right or release/open should be used? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am changing to present city names and location names and adding (then called) on first instance. New names include: Mumbai, Kolkata, Maharashtra, Gujarat.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Excited to see the hard work of editors on old but important movie of bollywood. Rather than jumping into editing I would like to suggest here, though its not much necessary.
The lead shall specify about her (Radha's) struggle was after her husband tragedy and left the family, Though the section Plot mentions it but we can write it in few words in the lead.
The current lead read as:
It can be written as:
Or something similar, so that the readers will get the clear concept of movie and her (Radha's) struggle to raise the children in the absence of husband. Hope i am clear to put the point. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion 2
Hi sorry to bother you all again, another suggestion is at the section Reception's subsection Release.
the sentence read as:
I think we should replace "Karnataka (then called Mysore State)" to just "Karnataka" because the film was released in October 1957 and at that time the state was already called Karnataka. According to article Karnataka it was "formed in November 1956 and the state name Mysore was renamed to Karnataka since 1973". Hope it helps, Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 15:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA! A few suggestions that I couldn't find time to give at the FAC:
I know this is a contentious topic, so I will try to keep it brief. I recently edited this article and changed a few instances of the term "Bollywood" to "Hindi film"/"Hindi Language film" as syntactically/semantically appropriate that were reverted (in good faith) by Redtigerxyz (who gave me the benefit of doubt as well). He/she may have noticed that I didn't change all instances, but left many instances of the term (Bollywood) in the article alone, either because of the context or when they were in a title/reference (naturally). The film in this article and the artists significantly predate the term Bollywood, including all the events described therein. My edits preserve the redirects correctly, e.g. Hindi Film which internally redirects to Bollywood, so there are no broken links etc. What is the general consensus on referring to the films/artists/personalities etc of the yore when the term Bollywood was simply not in existence? For instance, I wouldn't consider replacing the term Bollywood for anything modern (say after 1980 or even a little before), regardless of my personal preferences, but for anything before 1970 Bollywood is an inaccurate appellation. Bmurthy ( talk) 01:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Kailash29792: Actually I've now seen that the source says "calendars"; my fix was correct. Google Books search. I'm not sure how a "representation of Mother India" would be displayed on a paper-making machine! -- John of Reading ( talk) 19:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, Mother India has a Tamil remake titled Punniya Boomi (Sources: This book and this article) and a Telugu one titled Bangaru Thalli ( Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, p. 112). Where will information on them fit in this article? Kailash29792 ( talk) 15:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Mother India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
According to the Indian copyright act of 1957, all movies become part of the public domain 60 years after publication at the latest. In 2018, it would concern all indian films released in 1957 which includes Mother India. I'm quite uncertain if the 1957 dispositions still holds (even though there doesn't seem to have been a major reform regarding copyright length since then), but if true we would be able to import the film on Commons and display illustrations/exceprts on the article… Alexander Doria ( talk) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mother India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "boi57":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I converted the "Bibliography" section to a subsection per MOS:BIB. As a section it is misplaced normally belonging first in the appendices in biographies or "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography". As sourcing, along with text source integrity presents citations so related deserving a subsection. Otr500 ( talk) 03:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
With a budget of within ₹40 lakh, Mother India could not have been the most expensive Indian film to that point, as Box Office India says Jhansi Ki Rani (1953) was made at a budget of ₹60 lakh. Redtigerxyz, please make necessary amendments. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Are wp pages supposed to have the entire film on the film's page? Isn't this copyright violation of some form or the other? Tetrahedron17 ( talk) 15:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)