Wikipedia

Talk:Eega

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Reo kwon in topic Budget of the film
Learn more about this page
Featured articleEega 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 6, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
June 26, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 28, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
October 22, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

File:Eega movie 2012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Eega movie 2012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:Eega-First-Look-Poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Eega-First-Look-Poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eega-First-Look-Poster.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rajamouli’s statement about Megastar Chiru’s film !!

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rajamouli’s statement about Megastar Chiru’s film !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaianu (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Edit request on 14 July 2012

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tollyhub.com gave 4/5 star rating for Eega - Source : http://tollyhub.com/eega-movie-review/

Tollyhub.com article on eega records and collections. Source : http://tollyhub.com/eega-collections-records/

Ashezreinz (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Eega first week collections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiarocks08 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's not clear to me that Tollyhub.com meets Wikipedia guidelines for external links or notability. I'd prefer to see clear consensus to include it before adding. Rivertorch (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

EEGA 21 DAYS BOX OFFICE COLLECTIONS

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

21 DAYS BOX OFFICE COLLECTIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.104.191 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 N Dead link. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC).Reply

Plot is too detailed and reveals even the climax

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I strongly believe that Plot section is far too detailed. Also it should be edited to make sure climax is not revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikalp74 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The movie has crossed it's 100 days also and revealing the climax is not wrong. If the movie is released just a few days ago then the plot shouln't be added. Raghusri (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Removal of Tamil name

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Murrallli, please explain your position. Here is the previous discussion of this topic.Talk:Naan Ee. Also kindly explain why you remove any reference directed to South Indian cinema. Thanks!-- Dravidian  Hero  19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two films, two different posters

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:NFCC#3a doesn't apply here as this article covers two separate films, which have been merged to avoid duplicate content in separate film articles. So 1 film = 1 poster = minimal usage.-- Dravidian  Hero  10:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your opinion is right Mr. Dravidian :), but the two posters containing image file was deleted by admin. See here : Merged file. Regards, Raghusri (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted the image again based on expert consensus: Raghusri, me and Murrallli-- Dravidian  Hero  13:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply


then why dont u both split the two articles eega and naani???? why on earth u merge the articles and fight for image??? Murrallli (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Merging was decided at Talk:Naan Ee.-- Dravidian  Hero  14:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eega. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Eega. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

TFAR

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Eega --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

As of?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've added an {{as of?}} tag to ...

Its Hindi-dubbed version, Makkhi, which was released on 12 October 2012, was not as commercially successful[as of?] as the others.

... because as comparative 'commercial success' is subject to change* some clarification seems warranted (MOS:EPHEMERAL). Perhaps the passage might be better phrased something like ...

Additionally, a Hindi-dubbed version titled Makkhi was released on 12 October 2012; according to [ _____ ] as of [ _____ ] it had not performed as well commercially as the others.

... or ...

Additionally a Hindi-dubbed version titled Makkhi was released on 12 October 2012; as of [ _____ ] it had not performed as well commercially as the others.[reference link]

If details to fill-in-the-blanks aren't presently readily available perhaps the existence of the Hindi-dub should simply be noted on its own, perhaps a so ...

Additionally a Hindi-dubbed version titled Makkhi was released on 12 October 2012.

*[Personally, I came across Makkhi subtitled in English on US Netflix (which presently opens it up to a fairly large Anglosphere audience) while browsing the Netflix cult films category. I loved it and searched for info about it soon after watching.]

--75.188.199.98 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised you have a problem with things other experienced editors didn't before this article passed FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Kailash29792, your statement doesn't seem to me in any way directly responsive to the concerns raised in the content presented before it and might even be taken to imply that you've somehow conflated FAC status into some sort of declaration of finished perfection beyond the reach of further improvements. Did I perhaps miss some obscure clause where WP:OWNership gets selectively handed out by infallible omniscient reviewers along with WP:FA recognition? Perhaps in the future you might be so kind as to address the merits of arguments as presented. And maybe avoid making "crap" edit summaries in the future as well, eh?
:  } --75.188.199.98 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Makkhi was a failure, and Rajamouli has explained why. Now how do you want us to rewrite the lead to avoid having the as of tag? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Kailash29792, thanks for offering a relevant link. You've stated without qualification, "Makkhi was a failure", yet the very article you linked afterwards refers to, "Makkhi ’s average run in theatres" (bold added for emphasis), and goes on to note that, "it had a great run on satellite TV". Please, let's try to avoid hyperbole going forward as we're aspiring to produce encyclopedic text.
Perhaps something like ...

... Eega was one of the highest-grossing Telugu films of the year, earning more than ₹1.25 billion (US$16.87 million). Its Hindi-dubbed version, Makkhi, was released on 12 October 2012. Rajamouli felt that Makkhi hadn't been presented as well as other versions and thus, as of June 2015, had not achieved equivalent commercial success.[1] ...

References

  1. ^ Madhumitha Srinivasan. "'I sell oranges'". The Hindu. Retrieved 16 October 2017. I felt Makkhi was not presented well even though it had a great run on satellite TV. Considering the movie had done well in other parts of the country, I felt it odd that it didn't do well in Hindi. I realised that it is not just enough to have good content. Unless it is presented well, the audience won't come.—S.S. Rajamouli
... Though perhaps argument might be made for 'undue weight' in the lead (which seems already fairly long). Maybe some of the commercial performance details (and perhaps some other details of the lead as well) might be better moved to the #Release section in the body of the article?
Regardless, I'll go ahead and place text and ref as above in the lead for now as a means of removing the {{As of?}} tag and then we can consider the possibility of making the lead as a whole more concise by moving some details into the body of the article in a cohesive manner. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Budget of the film

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

While there is consensus to include a range for the film's budget, the actual range is kind of dicey. Rajamouli mentioned in various occasions a budget of ₹30 cr and ₹30–35 cr. And independent estimates have the budget at ₹40 cr.

Actor Nani mentioned ₹25 cr as the budget. But Nani is not the primary lead of the film, is not involved in the production of the film and was only an upcoming actor at the time to have a greater say in the production. So what he heard might not be accurate or the budget might have increased afterwards as the film was extensively reshot.

On the other hand, Rajamouli is the director and is also involved in the production through Vaarahi in which he is a partner. In view of all this, I think the budget range can be changed to ₹30–40 crore to accommodate both official figures from the director and independent estimates while not considering Nani's estimate which might not be the final figure or accurate. Let me know your thoughts. Reo kwon (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and include the budget range. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Range may be changed but retain Nani's quote in the efn as is. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Changed the budget range to ₹30–40 crore (US$6–7 million) and retained Nani's quote in the Explanatory Footnote as it is. Thank you. Reo kwon (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eega&oldid=1196527161"