Talk:Dam 999

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Crew[edit]

Why should this article have such an elaborate 'Crew' section? Usually film articles don't have a 'crew' section at all (captured in Infobox itself), and never have such a big 'crew' section. Removing or trimming the 'crew' section suggested.
Anish Viswa 03:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One User is continuously adding an elaborate crew section to the article and is not ready to adhere to the wiki guidelines. Request senior Wikipedians to provide valuable advice and decision on this regard.
Anish Viswa 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads more like a commercial for the film.please edit as necessary.

Caution[edit]

User:Rainbowsav was informed on his talk page that his continually re-adding a bulleted crew section was inappropriate, and he was advised of alternatives that would meet the instuctions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. After that message was posted, he added the crew section yet again. I have reverted his edit and strongly encourage that he discuss the matter before adding it a fourth time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many films in wikipedia with a crew section. Kindly search for those films. Some examples are the film Kaminey, Omkara,etc. The crew section is still there in thousands of film pages. The cast of the film is repeated after the info box. Then why not the crew. Kindly take all these things as a part of giving informations. The purpose is to give informations on the crew. If you are against a bulleted crew section, i will include that in the production section. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowsav (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No bulleted crew list.

I am quite happy to applaud your work on improving Cinema of India articles. And while yes... cast is included in infobox and article body, the infobox contains only the film's major players, and the body then also includes the major supporting players in a listing and/or in article prose, but not the various and sundry minor background actors. You'll note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production states how and where to deal with the most important artists (cast and crew). The film manual of style has been developed over many years, and you are always welcome to dicuss changes to it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film.

In looking at your examples, I see Kaminey does not have mention of lessor crew positions and Omkara (film) mentions in prose some lessor crew who worked on the film. And to give information on lessor crew, one does not simply write "John Smith was production designer", as that is something a reader might find in any database. Better to source and state something like, "Award-winning production designer John Smith was brought into the project based upon his work on Film XYZ. Director Jones wanted that same expertise". THAT kind of contextual prose informs readers in a manner that is not simply a trivial listing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

There seems to an edit war in the reception section of this article with people try to push reports which are favourable to them. Maybe, we should try to keep only the factual details there with valid references and remove all the reports from sources which are not considered reliable or valid by Wikipedia.
Anish Viswa 03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dam 999. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]