Talk:Taare Zameen Par

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTaare Zameen Par 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 May 18, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
November 14, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 27, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

English title[edit]

While "Stars on Earth" is one possible translation, there are others: Stars on the Ground, Like Stars on Earth are also possible. All three appear in sources, and the final one is the official title of the Disney release. To simply offer one borders on Wikipedia:No original research and will invite editors to perpetually change it according to the way they think it should be translated.The section that translates the title is sufficient. Or using the title that was used by Disney as that is an official translation that can be sourced. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't translate to "Like Stars on Earth", but could be "Earth" or "Ground". I think it would be best to include it and use "Earth", as that is the translation for Zameen that Disney uses. Ωphois 06:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "Like Stars on Earth".[edit]

This film is called Like Stars on Earth in all English-speaking countries. That is what counts for English Wikipedia. See WP:NCF#Foreign-language films, and take particular note of this: "The phrase 'the English-speaking world' refers to countries in which the majority of the population speaks English as their first language; it thus includes the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as several smaller countries. It does not include countries such as India in which English is a common second language, but in which films are rarely produced in English." Film Fan (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of just putting that to begin with, you started an all-day edit war? Anyways, the naming convention policy also says that exceptions exist, and to use the talk page to discuss it. As such, I've reported you for edit warring since you have not reverted it back to the original way it was while the name is discussed. Ωphois 00:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films) deemed it based on the number of English-language sources that use the title. Ωphois 00:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbed version of the TZP in Tamil & Telugu is not released - Kindly update[edit]

Dear Sir,

Dubbed version of the TZP in Tamil & Telugu is not released - Kindly update the same in the Article. Looking for this wonderful movie to be dubbed or remade in Tamil & Telugu.

Regards,

Carthik Babu M.S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.35.166 (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)~~>[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. However, Wikipedia has to go by cited reliable sources, which noted that they were dubbed in Tamil and Telugu. Do you have any news articles that show complaints on it not being translated? Ωphois 13:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have sources to confirm the film's release? All of them till date say that it was to release on September 12 (1, 2) and some even say that the dubbing had been completed, but no reports after the date reaffirm the claim. In the article, it is said that they "released". I think a change of phrasing is required here, similar to "the film was dubbed into Tamil and Telugu and scheduled to release on September 12", without further detail. Secret of success (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'll do that. Ωphois 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

What exactly is British formatting? The dates in the references are inconsistent, and half of them are in mdy, and some in ymd. To take care of that, we have a script which can be used. Secret of success (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British formatting would be YMD. I didn't realize that some of the refs weren't formatted this way. Ωphois 19:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

I have restored the lead section to the format that was approved during the FAC process. Hindi script is no longer used in article titles after a Rfc on the topic, and I believe the flow of the lead is better with the international title being mentioned in the part of the lead that actually discusses it. I have opened this to discuss the lead section, as per Wikipedia:BRD opposition to a change requires that it be restored to the original version and discussed. Ωphois 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_48#Native_languages_in_lead, language scripts are no longer desired in Indian film articles. IPA pronunciations are preferred. BollyJeff | talk 23:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the DVD title should be placed later in the lead. The film was released in cinemas worldwide as "Taare Zameen Par", and the "Like Stars on Earth" title only applies to the later DVD release. Since the lead section actually discusses the DVD release, I think it would make most sense to put it there. Ωphois 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the DVD is not so important as to warrant a mention in the first paragraph. Just like other articles, the order goes in terms of chronology: production, release, reception and post-release. The DVD came after the film released, hence should be near the last part. Secret of success (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Like Stars on Earth is arguably the most-used title in the English-speaking world, since the DVD has been around several years now and broadcasts and everything else in the English-speaking world use the title Like Stars on Earth. It absolutely has to be mentioned in the first sentence at the very least. Film Fan (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the article to avoid the exact same edit war that occurred in September. Please resolve the discussion here before performing any further reverts. If you come to a consensus before the protection expires, please let me know at my talk page, or make a request at WP:RFPP. Kuru (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you now: We won't come to a consensus. Common sense and Wikipedia guidelines will be ignored, because of a couple of over-zealous contributors who simply dislike the English title of the film and would prefer to ignore the fact that in the English-speaking world, the film is known by that title. Film Fan (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Film Fan, you're missing a lot of things. The film is Indian, Indian film articles have Hindi names, and most importantly, moving the article or including Like Stars on Earth on the lead won't improve Wikipedia. And, if it is mostly known as Like Stars on Earth in the English-speaking world, doesn't mean it should be mentioned. ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia uses the title by which the film is known in the English-speaking world[1] and if there is any dispute over this (known by two different titles) the AKA is mentioned in the lead sentence WP:EN. Including it in the first sentence DOES improve Wikipedia, not just because that is following the guidelines, but because for the many searching for the film by its English-language title, they find it better when it is mentioned earlier. Film Fan (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stars on Earth does redirect to here, so I see nothing wrong with including an AKA in the lead sentence to confirm to the reader that they are in the right place, and then removing the bolding from later in the lead. I would also then remove the English translation which would become redundant, and is not really used in many Indian film articles these days. Can you guys support such a plan? BollyJeff | talk 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how it should be. I mean, actually the whole article should be renamed but I'm not getting into that again. Film Fan (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been busy. There is no dispute over what the film is best known by in the English-speaking world. Film Fan is the only one bringing this up, while countless other editors have shown through reverts, comments, and opposition that TZP is the name it is best known by. From my understanding, what Film Fan keeps referencing is for films whose first exposure to English-speaking audiences was under the English title. TZP was released in cinemas in America and other English-speaking countries under the foreign title years prior to the DVD release. A Google search shows that people rarely refer to it as Like Stars on Earth. The English title is already mentioned in the lead in the section that refers to its DVD release. Personally, I feel that is adequate enough and creates a proper flow. Ωphois 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, months ago I brought this up at the naming conventions guideline page and was told that the guidelines don't apply since it just pertains to the DVD release. Ωphois 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stars on Earth is the title the film is currently released on DVD, on streaming sites, for broadcasts and whatever else you can think of. It is the title most recognizable to English-speakers in the English-speaking world and absolutely must be mentioned in the first sentence. Film Fan (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your only argument regarding this matter, and the the move discussion on this very page unanimously disagreed with you. Repeating the same failed arguments over and over isn't getting you anywhere. Ωphois 20:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't blindly disagree with facts. Film Fan (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the unwillingness of both of you to collaborate is both shocking and disappointing. BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am willing. Film Fan (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bollyjeff, film fan and I are not the ultimate authorities on this decision. Look at all the discussions on this page. There has been unanimous opposition from many editors each and every time film fan has tried this stunt. Regardless, you should know by now that film fan has no interest in improving this page, and insists on doing this because he knows it will cause disruption. I see no reason to collaborate when I and everyone else who has looked into the matter disagree with the suggestions of a disruptive editor. That's my opinion. There are other editors involved in the discussion, though. Ωphois 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not tried to make this edit before and I have zero interest in wasting time on petty arguments. You have to stop being so protective over this article. Film Fan (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ophois, can't you agree to my proposal above? Film fan said that he is okay with that (in fact he has already done it), and he will no longer pursue the article renaming if we do it. I was one of those who disagreed before, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me to add the alternative name at the beginning. What is the big deal? Just let it go, so we can end this. If anyone else following this discussion thought it was so important they would voice it here. Even films like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge say AKA DDLJ in the front and no one cares. BollyJeff | talk 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your change of heart is out of fear of Film Fan throwing another tantrum should he once again not get his way? Two other editors have voiced their opinion above. Secret of success and Pleasant1623 flat out disagreed with Film Fan's proposal. This has been brought up time after time after time, and has been met with unanimous opposition. This isn't a matter where a compromise is needed. Everyone else disagrees. This isn't a group of editors disagreeing with another group, it's a disruptive editor who cannot accept that consensus disagrees with him. If you want to end this, then please solidify the consensus that has always existed. The admins can deal with him if he becomes disruptive again.
It makes sense for a film like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge to mention the abbreviated version in the first sentence, because there is no other logical placement for it in the lead. For this article, Like Stars on Earth refers solely to the DVD release that occurred years later. This release is specifically mentioned already later in the lead. It is redundant to repeat the same bit of info twice. Believe me, I have considered the proposal, but for me it just throws off the flow of the lead. This is a featured article (having already passed FAC with it's current format), and the quality needs to be maintained. Ωphois 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I am done with this. I tried to broker a peace, but I really don't care enough about it to go on fighting as you guys do. I really don't know what motivates you. I do find it ironic though that you just got a 'Teamwork Barnstar'. Cheers. BollyJeff | talk 02:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attempts, but teamwork does not involve going against an already established consensus by giving in to the demands of a sole disruptive editor to make him go away. The barnstar you are referring to is for participating in a move discussion, in which we discussed our reasoning for the suggestion but ultimately accepted defeat when general consensus was against us. It did not involve us spamming the same failed arguments over and over until the opposition gave up out of exhaustion, or instilling the fear of future disruptions. Regardless, I do want to thank you for your involvement in these matters over the past six months. Ωphois 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will pursue this until the article is as it should be. THIS IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. WP:OWN. Secret of success has not replied ONCE, and Pleasant's reply made no sense. You do not have consensus, and I will not allow you to incorrectly protect this article simply because you don't like the flow (or rather because your agenda is to hide the fact that this film is in fact known by an English-language title in English-language countries, which English Wikipedia is supposed to present before anything else). Film Fan (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reply made no sense? What do you even mean by that?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has long been to keep it the original way. Per BRD, it falls on you to gain a consensus for the change, which you have clearly failed to do. As I stated earlier, I will follow consensus. I am not the ultimate authority. But consensus has always been against you. Ωphois 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ophois has asked that I make a comment on this discussion as I was an original editor of this article. The film had a theatrical release both in India and world wide as Taare Zameen Par and is known by that title as well as by TZP. A few years later, Disney released the film on DVD in the U.S. and U.K. as Like Stars on Earth (one of the many possible translations of the title). It is important to note this distinction: a wide release in English speaking countries and worldwide as Taare Zameen Par, a limited release in English speaking countries under the title, "Like Stars on Earth."

We thus need to go to the style guide and follow it as closely as possible:

In particular, let's look at the section here:

Under examples, please note the following:

"If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world – if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries – use the most common title throughout, and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold. Shoot the Piano Player (French: Tirez sur le pianiste) is a 1960 French film directed by François Truffaut. It is released as Shoot the Pianist in the United Kingdom. Bande à part is a 1964 comedy-drama film directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It is released as Band of Outsiders in North America."

The common title for the film is Taare Zameen Par since as I state above, this is the original title under which it was released worldwide, including English speaking countries. Thus, per the examples above, I would suggest modifying the lead to:

"Taare Zameen Par is a 2007 Indian drama film directed by Aamir Khan. It was released by Disney on DVD in 2010 as Like Stars on Earth in North America and the UK."

I hope that helps. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Do you not feel that the current placement of the DVD release/title is adequate as it is? Since the DVD release has its own section of the lead, to me it feels redundant to mention the DVD release twice. Ωphois 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help out. It's always best to follow the style guide as closely as possible, so my inclination would be to modify the first sentence to explain right away why we chose "Like Stars on Earth." Technically, this is only one possible translation - you could say: Stars on Earth, Stars on the Ground, Like Stars on Earth etc. To leave the first sentence as it is will open the article to edit wars in my opinion. To affirm right away that there is an official title out there should end the debate. As for mentioning it twice, I don't think that is an issue - it is significant to say that this is Disney's first release. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, we have two options: To leave it the way I have, or to add in the bit that this was the title that was used (though no exclusively) for the international DVD. Either way, it comes at the beginning, as it should, so I'm happy whichever way you decide to go with your article which you own. Film Fan (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, myself and two other people flat out disagree with the inclusion of it in the first sentence, so there are three potential options. Ωphois 18:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. Film Fan (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Placement of alternate titles. Ωphois 00:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the discussion here. I can see the different points being made. I can also see how the similarity of the literal translation and the Disney translation muddle the issue. First, it seems clear that this film is circulated as Like Stars on Earth, so it is a plausible search term for viewers. My question is, when readers search Wikipedia for that title, is it pretty obvious that this is the topic they're looking for? They may not expect the film to be historically titled Taare Zameen Par, and I don't know if the literal translation in parentheses is sufficient to that end. The DVD title mentioned later in the section may or may not be sufficient for identification. Another way to look at it is outside search results. For example, if one searches for Like Stars on Earth, the Wikipedia article will appear but with only that later part of the lead section. If it is just Stars on Earth, we can see the first sentence of the Wikipedia article. Lastly, I see that IMDb uses the title Like Stars on Earth, and I have to say that strengthens the case for identifying it as an alternate title. The wording could be something else like "also issued as" (I dealt with a similar issue with Solomon Northup's Odyssey earlier this week). I'm thinking so far that upfront mention of the alternative title helps the readership the most, to minimize scanning in this article's lead section or in search results' blurbs. Is it possible to mention the literal translation a little later? Something like, "Gupte developed the idea for Taare Zameen Par (literally Stars on Earth) with his wife..."? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing's for sure: The title Like Stars on Earth is much more relevant than the unused literal translation. Thanks for your input, by the way. Film Fan (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Erik who knows more about how film titles work than most on the Wikipedia and reiterate the points I made above. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's Erik, Classicfilms, BollyJeff and myself so far. Feels like a growing consensus... Film Fan (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rush with this, please. I know there has been animosity over this point, but let's continue to garner additional input. It's crucial for every editor to focus on content. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But to be fair, the process hasn't exactly been rushed so far. Film Fan (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a growing consensus based on discussion instead of trying to force your opinion onto others. Hopefully you'll be able to learn from this, and shape your persistence into positive contributions to Wikipedia in the future. It definitely beats racking up blocks on your log :) Ωphois 03:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As someone who worked on this article for many years and is very familiar with the film, I can affirm that within India and the Indian diaspora, this film is known and referred to as Taare Zameen Par - a title which can be translated in a variety of ways in English as I mention above (and in the body of the article itself). I don't think as Wikipedians, we can say that there is an absolute translation of this title and that includes Stars on Earth. Out of curiosity, I did a Google search on the phrase Like Stars on Earth and this is what I came up with. From a WP:NPOV standpoint, I do feel that if the phrase Like Stars on Earth is used, we should say that this is the way that Disney chose to translate it - rather than offer it as the definitive translation. At the same time, it seems like major websites in the English speaking world do use Like Stars on Earth (see below). I like the option that Erik offered for Solomon Northup's Odyssey (which we can amend by saying that this is the official title of the U.S. DVD release).

-Classicfilms (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea, but it still seems weird/redundant to me to have the English title listed twice in the lead. Can you think of a way to have that format, but with the Disney title mentioned just once while maintaining the context? Ωphois 03:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How about --

  • First sentence:

"Taare Zameen Par is a 2007 Indian drama film directed by Aamir Khan. It was released by Disney on DVD in 2010 as Like Stars on Earth in North America and the UK."

Or

"Taare Zameen Par, released by Disney on DVD as Like Stars on Earth, …"

  • For the later sentence, just remove the title:

"Less than two years later Walt Disney Home Entertainment released an international edition DVD, marking the first purchase of distribution rights for an Indian film by a global company."

Just suggestions, we can play with the wording. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modification?[edit]

I would like to modify the first sentence per what I wrote above since it will reduce the possibility of edit wars if we say that Disney chose this title. I can use either option I suggest. I"ll wait a few days and if I don't hear a response, I'll make the modification. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there doesn't seem to be any overriding objections, I am going to modify the first sentence according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) -Classicfilms (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the first two sentences and the later sentence discussing the Disney DVD. I think that these changes both honor the original title and at the same time acknowledge the English title which as I pointed out in the links above is commonly used on English film websites. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the issue of translation is covered here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par#Title_and_translation

so the topic does not have to be part of the introductory paragraph. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the second suggestion was better. The current way of having two sentences makes it seem disjointed to me. Ωphois 00:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Good job. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Taare Zameen Par → Like Stars on Earth – This is the title used in English-speaking countries, and the title most recognized by the English-speaking world.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] See WP:NCF and WP:EN. Film Fan (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. This has already been brought up by Film Fan numerous times, and has been unanimously vetoed every time. As stated in the projects that Film Fan referenced above, article titles are based on the name referred to by English sources, and at least 90% of the English sources used for this article use the foreign title. Another way of determining the article title is the name used for cinematic release, and this film was released in cinemas worldwide (including the US) under the foreign title. The English title has only ever been used for the DVD release years later. Most of the links listed above either refer to just the DVD release or are merely blank pages that just say the English title, while nearly all of the sources in the article that actually discuss the film use Taare Zameen Par. Ωphois 17:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was YOU who vetoed my previous attempt. And I didn't try a formal request like this. Also, your stat about English sources is completely made up by you, and it is thoroughly untrue. Your statement about my sources is also false. Film Fan (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I am the only one opposing it, why have you been blocked on two occasions after edit warring on this article against multiple editors? As for the links you provided:
Link 1: Website selling the DVD. You forgot to mention the fact though that a search for "Like Stars on Earth" on this website brings up only the one DVD, while a search for "Taare Zameen Par" there brings up many related products.
Link 2: Website selling the DVD
Link 3: Refers to it using both titles
Link 4: Uses the foreign poster of the film, and only includes one line from two reviews (one of which is used in this article and refers to the film solely under the foreign title)
Link 5: Website renting out the DVD
Link 6: Blank except for poster and title
Link 7: Refers to it using both titles
Link 8: Only has the title and two lines of basic info. Strange that you didn't note the Fandango entry for the actual American cinematic release of the film here which refers to it solely by the foreign title and includes much more information about the film than your link.
Link 9: Refers to it using both titles
Link 10: Advertisement for the DVD
The article uses about 80 unique English-language sources. If there are so many English sources that use the English title, it's strange that you wouldn't include any of them as evidence instead of just saying that I'm lying... Ωphois 20:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't have the time to scour the entire web. And you will note, of course, that many of those English-language sources DO refer to the film by its English-language name. Film Fan (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entire web? This article has a references section that neatly lists them all. If I'm lying, as you claim, then please prove me wrong. Ωphois 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Too much time. But yes you are lying. PA struck by Franamax (talk) Film Fan (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why do you keep coming back to this? The official website, written in English, calls it Taare Zameen Par. I live in the English speaking world and I know it as Taare Zameen Par. The article made FA under the title Taare Zameen Par. Don't you think they would have vetted the title during the FA review? BollyJeff | talk 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some titles change. This one changed to Like Stars on Earth. The majority of the film's audience in the English-speaking world found the movie since the name change. And that website hasn't been updated in four years. Film Fan (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the WP guidelines that you yourself cited above. You haven't even been able to find a legitimate non-retail source that solely refers to the film under the English title. Ωphois 01:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are all legitimate and the majority are non-retail, so you're wrong again. Film Fan (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which one are you referring to that solely refers to it as the English title? The only possible one could be the Yahoo page. Compare that and this. Notice any differences? Ωphois 02:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't call me a troll. It was a reasonable request with perfectly clear logic. Film Fan (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Original film title.
the title most recognized by the English-speaking world
I am thinking how we are going to translate Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for English-speaking world? Will it be "Charming Servant Work Moon Merchant"? --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, on a more serious note, Taare Zameen Par is the original title of the film. I see no reason to change it to any other title. But, yes, we can off course mention the Englis title too in lead, infobox etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not Wikipedia policy. Film Fan (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lajmi[edit]

Hey Filmfan.. I had asked you to give a specific reason. 1) Wouldn't "herself in a cameo" be more specific then just "herself", putting word cameo gives information about the duration of her role/appearance in the movie. 2) If you check articles about other other actors e.g. Amitabh Bachchan etc. featuring in a movie is always referred as "appearance" not "experience". phrases like "first experience" on the other hand or used when we are talking about first movie as director or producer. --Vigyani (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. To say that it's her first acting experience refers to both film acting and any other kind of acting, such as TV or theatre. So it tells you more. I don't have a problem with the cameo bit. Put that back in if you like. But leave the other bit alone. Simple. Film Fan (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmm.. I'll try to find if this is really first "experience". Anyhow use a more formal and polite language and do not jump to words like "silly" so quickly. --Vigyani (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taare Zameen Par. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Taare Zameen Par. 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) 23:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taare Zameen Par. 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) 14:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Interesting discussion regarding what in English means, in which I'm tempted to join! But clearly no prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taare Zameen Par → Like Stars on Earth – This is the WP:COMMONNAME in the English-speaking world. WP:NCF.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] — Film Fan 12:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: As stated in the previous move discussion. Besides, the article passed FAC with the Hindi title. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the WP:COMMONNAME is Like Stars On Earth. And more so now than the last discussion five years ago. — Film Fan 16:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It should keep its original name. In most of the links you listed above, you can also find it by searching the Taare Zameen Par name. There should be a limit to how many times one editor can raise the same discussion. Bollyjeff | talk 01:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice to include the original title of a film in an article, so that point is irrelevant. And the only previous move request was five years ago. — Film Fan 10:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Disney was the sole marketer, and they officially changed the name, I could see moving it, but if UTV still owns it and markets it under the original name, no. Bollyjeff | talk 12:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for the WP:COMMONNAME in the English-speaking world, and India doesn't qualify, per WP:NCF, so UTV is irrelevant. — Film Fan 21:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article English-speaking world says "India has more people who speak or understand English than any other country in the world." Isn't anyone else going to comment? Bollyjeff | talk 13:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous comment... — Film Fan 14:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NCF: "Note: in the following paragraphs, the phrase 'the English-speaking world' refers to countries in which the majority of the population speaks English as their first language; it thus includes the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, as well as several smaller countries. It does not include countries such as India in which English is a common second language, but in which films are rarely produced in English." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The current name is the common name. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the English-speaking world. — Film Fan 19:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that when the Disney title is used, the (Taare Zameen Par) is also shown. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...in some cases... as with all foreign films... — Film Fan 22:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten![edit]

I loved the film, but this piece is severely over-detailed—it's more like a fan-written "making of" book than a reference article. For example, numerous statements are presented as though they have some special pertinence to this film, but which relate to film making in general; and far too much attention is given the creators' personal reflections on the production.
I've made some simplification suggestions, but won't assume to pare down the entire thing to a more encyclopedic style. Perhaps some of you can reach a consensus on doing so. It's a case where "less" would certainly be "more". – AndyFielding (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taare_Zameen_Par&oldid=1208078459"