Talk:Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani

Rewrote plot synopsis

The previous version had clearly been written by someone who spoke English as a second language. It also (it seemed to me) saw the film as Bunny's story and not Naina's. I rewrote in standard English and gave more emphasis to Naina. I also left out the ending. The film was just too good at keeping viewers in suspense; I did not want to spoil the ending, as this is a new, just-out film. The synopsis can be rewritten once the film has been out longer.

I am glad I was able to see it so soon after release, and on the big screen too :) Honolulu is not a great place to watch Indian movies. Zora (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with the new plot, but please write the ending, per WP:SPOILER. Thanks.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Zora (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted to earlier version of plot synopsis

An anon editor decided that the plot synopsis didn't include enough detail and added several paragraphs of badly written prose. It was unreadable. It was like being trapped at a party by a bore who wants to tell you everything that happened in the last movie he saw -- scene by scene, dialogue by dialogue. I have no strong attachment to my rewrite; I've accepted other edits ... but this one was unacceptable. I reverted to the last succinct version. Zora (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation of title

Someone changed the beginning to read: Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (English: This Youthfulness Is Crazy).

The English translation is not good English. It is ungrammatical and unidiomatic. I would suspect that something like (The Youth of Today Are Crazy) or (The Youth Are Crazy) would be better, but I hate to insist, as my Hindi is merely a smattering of vocabulary. I would appreciate input from someone who is fluent in BOTH Hindi and English. Zora (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the translation is required for this subject at all. The most appropriate thing would be to remove the translation. MAShaikh (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I consulted a friend, who gave me a word for word translation: This Youthfulness is Craziness. That also is bad English. I don't think that the Hindi grammar maps well into English. I'm a competent native speaker of English and, speaking informally, I would just shrug my shoulders and say "Kids are nuts" :) One only says youth in formal speech, which is perhaps the wrong register for a rom-com movie title. I will remove the translation for now and perhaps we can discuss the matter before adding one again. Zora (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK, removal done by someone else. Zora (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My friend Raja, a former Mumbaikar, suggests Youth Is Madness. Still a bit formal, but I thought I would put this up for discussion too. Zora (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2013

This is a Flop Movie 98.202.213.22 (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't proposed any specific changes. Please refile your request if you can identify something in particular you want to change, and what it should be changed to. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Lakh and crore

South Asian editors are using the word crore with abandon in describing expenses and receipts. I am an American and I do not use the word crore! I have a hard time remembering what lakh and crore mean. I think I represent the majority of users of the English Wikipedia. Could the South Asian editors PLEASE translate into AmE or BrE?You can give the figures both ways, that's fine, but don't use Indian English exclusively. Zora (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It was million and billion previously, but this Geocraze just keeps vandalizing the article. I reverted him many times, but he just wouldn't listen.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 04:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've stayed out of it so far, but I'm prepared to revert to your versions if that is what is going one. Zora (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nett -- and use of Indian English (InE)

I changed all the netts to net and someone changed them back. I looked up the matter online (dictionaries) and found that nett is a variant spelling used in the UK. That WAS used in the UK. Even though I am an American, I read many UK books/journals/newspapers and I had never seen nett used. I am an editor by trade and consulted a mailing list for editors. Several UK editors said that they had never seen the nett spelling. Given that there's lots of back and forth between the New York and London financial centers, it would seem that the American accounting term has prevailed. However, one Indian editor on the list said that nett was the InE standard. OK, that's likely. InE retains many spellings and idioms that are passe in the UK.

The Indian editor further commented that of course InE should be the standard in all Wiki articles relating to India. I do not believe that this is workable. Currently, BrE (UK English) and AmE (American English) are both acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia. This is acceptable because there's a lot of two-way flow between US and UK publishing and media, and most Americans and Brits are aware of differences in spelling and idiom, and even open to adopting useful words. However, I do not think that there's the same two-way flow between the US-UK and India. Many expressions and spellings that are standard in InE would be simply incomprehensible to most Wikipedia users. Also, if WP accepts InE as a standard, in all fairness we'd also have to accept CanE, AusE, Singlish, Chinglish, Japlish, and the many other dialects of English now current. Heck, dialects within the US and UK too. Articles about Glasgow to be written in Glaswegian.

If English continues to splinter, the English-language Wikipedia may also have to splinter at some point. Perhaps someday there will be an InE Wikipedia. Until then, I would suggest that all articles be written in either AmE or BrE. Please. For the sake of the users. Zora (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis should be readable

Another editor has rewritten the synopsis. Some of the edits are OK, but the rewrite on the last section is confusing and longwinded. A movie synopsis should be short enough to read and comprehend, NOT a blow-by-blow recounting of every last scene and subplot. I will work on the last section later ... just got back from a meditation retreat. Zora (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Unreadable? Looks pretty good to me (though the grammar is not up to the mark).----Jionpedia ✉ 16:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Another editor reverted many of the recent changes, but the last para was left in an ungrammatical, incoherent shambles. I rewrote. It has now been several months since I saw the movie, so I hope that I remembered the ending correctly. Please do check.

I removed the mention of Vikram (why throw another name at readers? It is confusing) and all references to the Avi subplot. That is a subplot. It could be removed without affecting the main plot at all. Zora (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism directed at plot section

An editor using various anon IPs is repeatedly deleting the last two paras of the plot section. These are the sections that I rewrote, fixing some edits submitted by someone who clearly did not speak English as a first language. I suspect that the writer of the garbled, ESL last section is taking revenge for the rewrite. If this happens again, perhaps we could request semi-protection. Not allowing anon edits might solve the problem. Zora (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

About the Writer.

I read that Hussain Dalal is the writer for the movie Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani based on the story by Ayan Mukerjei. Can any please have a look and verify it ?
My reference link -
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/i-am-not-gifted-at-writing-says-yeh-jawaani-hai-deewani-writer/1126305/
http://www.needcoffee.com/2013/06/28/yeh-jawaani-hai-deewani-movie-review/
Sid goenka (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The first one can be considered but please check BH. Soham 17:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Soham, what is BH ! Sorry I am a new editor so still trying to keep up.
Sid goenka (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, its glad to see someone who is eager to learn. BH stands for Bollywood Hungama which says Ayan is the writer. Soham 15:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Madharchodiet Network

The Madharchodiet Network has infilytrated Bollywood namely Karan Johar (most likely thru the Faried Pierkhan Madharchodiet in Suriname). They produced this movie by the murder of a civilian who was being influenced by medication and greed of Kanhai Madharchodiet (wife's side). They also murdered a son by medical malpractice.

Merger proposal

Consensus was to merge and redirect. Redirected now and nothing substantial to merge that's not already in the Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Article Subhanallah (song) fails the notability criteria for songs. The cited sources are mentions in the credits, or very brief coverage (three sentences in each of two sources) within the context of the film's music in general. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, EBSCO, and InfoTrac found no other independent reliable sources that could help establish the song's notability. Wikipedia:Record charts gives limited guidance regarding Indian music charts, but I found no evidence on officialcharts.com or planetbollywood.com of the song ever charting. The song article is a stub, and the notability guidelines go on to say, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material ... articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged."

Therefore I propose that non-notable stub Subhanallah (song) be merged here, to the film the song is from. There is, in fact, very little unique content to merge - the song's length of 4:10 and that it is a romantic song. The main point is that Subhanallah (song) should be turned into a redirect to this article. Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - nothing indicates the song is notable by itself. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Not enough notable a song is this to be included as a separate article. I would rather support to create a separate article for the super hit and popular song Badtameez Dil which was a big hit, but Subhanallah is never a notable one. Arka 92 19:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131014000647/http://www.boxofficeindia.com:80/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6141&nCat= to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6141&nCat=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131013050018/http://www.boxofficeindia.com:80/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6138&nCat= to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6138&nCat=

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)