Talk:Vettah

A few notes on my edit

I'm not sure how relevant the statement about the directors death is to the article. I feel that it should be there somewhere, but not necessarily in the lede. I'm also not sure what the original author means by a 'forced idea' but since I'm not at all familiar with the context of the film I can't change it to something more unambiguous --Chemoralora (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chemoralora, I aced the "forced idea". Sounds like someone editorializing about what they perceive to be a poor choice of actress. No objection to moving director death if you find a reasonable spot. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chemoralora! Even I think the director's death is notable enough to be on the page. It being on the summary is good to go. I don't know the edit history, however. Quick trivia to you, Cyphoidbomb: the lead actress of the film is banished by a certain faction in Kerala (a Southern state in India) because she deserted her now ex-spouse allegedly because she wanted to resume working in films. It's a murky story and even murkier thing to say about someone. But that's how the world is. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Facebook, twitter and whatsapp messages shouldn't be considered for primary source of information (banished by a certain faction in Kerala-What sort of imagined backward place are you trying to represent. Don't drag the state's name for personal sociopolitical views.) If a review criticizes the film or the actors portrayed(None do now, but if it happens)- it isn't murky. It is just facts. Whether to include it or not is with its importance to the film. Death of the director could be removed, since it doesn't have anything to do with film other than give a sympathetic attachment. But a separate article for the director could be created and the content could be added in that. Since its a recent death citations and features will be available for those who are willing. 117.215.199.51 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Grammar issues in plot

There's been some back-and-forth recently re: certain phrasing in the plot section:

Original: "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a missing person case of an actress, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith)."

vs.

Modified: "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a case of an actress who, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), has gone missing"

There is an obvious ambiguity in the original, which led to the modified version, but we should clear this up. So, the questions are: 1) Who has gone missing? 2) Who is investigating?

Using my logic goggles, my guess is that the actress has gone missing, and Commissioner Sreebala and Silas Abraham are investigating. Is this correct? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right "the actress has gone missing, and Commissioner Sreebala and Silas Abraham are investigating". Does the modified sentence say that. If it says so kindly explain the grammatical structure and what i possibly misunderstood. "who, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), has gone missing"- This is the part which makes me think (Sreebala) -> investigates -> (Missing [Actress+Silas Abraham] case)117.213.20.34 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the sentence to read: "The story revolves around two members of the Indian Police Service (IPS), Commissioner Sreebala (Manju Warrier) and Assistant Commissioner Silas Abraham (Indrajith), who investigate the disappearance of an actress." This should eliminate all ambiguities. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, thank you for making the changes. Just one more thing did the previous modified sentence say that - Its for my personal understanding. It would be helpful. 117.213.20.220 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but it sounds like you're asking for clarification on the changes for your personal benefit. If so, here's the explanation:

The original sentence is constructed in such a way that the word "her" is ambiguous. ("Ambiguous" means we can interpret something in two or more ways) Does "her" refer to the actress or to the Commissioner? Depending on our assumption, the conclusion we draw is either:

• The actress and Silas Abraham are colleagues, and both people have gone missing.
• The commissioner and Silas Abraham are colleagues, and only the actress has gone missing.

In my re-write, I moved Silas Abraham's name next to Sreebala's and clarified that they are colleagues, then indicated that the actress has gone missing. Now the sentence can only be interpreted in one way.

Here's another way to look at it: "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) and her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), who investigate a missing person case of an actress." This still contains grammar problems and confusing abbreviations, but by moving Silas and "colleague", we've eliminated the ambiguity about who the colleagues are and who disappears. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Both are good edits.117.213.20.220 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

28 days

It's unclear what the relevance of 28 days is in this edit submitted by Charles Turing. Typically we only care about the opening weekend and the lifetime gross, not arbitrarily selected points along the timeline. 28 days doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. If the film only ran 28 days, that would be noteworthy. I have flagged this content as potentially irrelevant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit completed

--Bddmagic (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)