Talk:Agnyaathavaasi

Principal Photography has begun

The movie has commenced principal photography and therefore qualifies WP:NFF. Relevant sourcn the article. I have gone ahead and taken the liberty to create the article, and I hope you don't mind it @De728631:. Jupitus Smart 16:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Agnyaathavaasi is a rip-off of "Largo Winch (2008)".

Please mention that this movie is a rip-off of "Largo Winch (2008)". Proof is here. Ram nareshji (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ram nareshji: Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? With those differences in mind, how would you propose this content be added? since "rip-off" wouldn't exactly fit the neutral tone we aspire to at Wikipedia? Note also that the filmmaker's opinion, according to the source you provided, says that his conclusion is based on a similarity between the films' loglines, not on his viewing of Agnyaathavaasi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

In the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnyaathavaasi has to add a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largo_Winch_(film) 100% , this well researched post watching both the films;

Look at the following links as a research articles for a neutral standpoint: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/telugu/pawan-kalyan-agnyaathavaasi-copyright-row-5010004/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Q_1gBm1Bc Trivikramsrinu (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism in lead

@77Survivor: in this edit I reverted your good-faith submission. There were a few problems I saw: 1) We don't need to tee up a controversy when we're talking about plagiarism, that is, we don't need the "the film was embroiled in a controversy" language when we could just deliver the facts, i.e. that the film was said to be plagiarised. 2) "Rip off" is not proper encyclopedic tone. 3) The content simply doesn't belong in the lead. While the lead typically summarises content found elsewhere in the article, we have to remember that the lead is a prominent location and when we stack information up there, especially when it might be controversial, and especially when in this case where there was no response or resolution to the accusation, we are placing undue emphasis on a negative event, which hurts our ability to provide a neutral point of view. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:I'm sorry if that edit sounded negative, but it was done from a neutral point of view. I can understand this kinda reflects on the mentality of the editor, but fine, let's let go of this since you're actually right. I have seen such stuff in numerous articles and thus felt the urge to add this here. I haven't seen the film, so I don't have any positive/negative opinions on it. Hope you understand this was done in a good faith. (77Survivor (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC))

@77Survivor: I very much believe it was in good faith. See my first sentence above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)