Talk:Kanthaswamy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't this a pure bilingual movie?[edit]

I'm pretty sure, that Mallanaa is originally filmed in Telugu, hence the title should be Kanthaswamy/Mallanaa, not just Mallana. What's your opinion? --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mallana is the dubbed version of the film, being advertised in such a view to make the film look original. Universal Hero (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference, that Mallanna is dubbed and wasn't made in Telugu? --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have the same charcters and the same scenes so it can't be a bilingual it's a Tamil film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.5.86 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article certainly needed a clean up. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this need a clean-up? And especially, it's rather funny that you out of all people claim a clean up is needed? Universal Hero (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not joking about it. [1] World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still in need of some clean-up due to bare URLs as citations. Bare URLs are subject to link rot if the URL changes or is no longer available. This puts verifiability of an article at risk because the sources of the information in an article can no longer be located. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move (September 2009)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no consensus to move, page stays. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{movereq|Kanthaswamy}}

Kanthaswamy (film) → Kanthaswamy — — An inconsiderate user suddenly, without any discussion changed the original page and made it a redirect to a different article. The film in question was only released a week ago, and is the home of many page hits so it needs a quick move back to its original page, with a warning for the changer. Universal Hero (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose because there is no reason for the name of a film to be a primary topic over multiple people who have that surname. The disambiguation page is fine, though the hatnote could be moved to a "...may also refer to..." line where the film is linked. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as stated above.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Support: How can you oppose? Guys, if you knew Tamil, you would understand that these two words are very differently pronounced. Moreover, the page was also unceremoniously moved. Moreover, the film is actually very popular and needs primary recognition like Star Wars and Dasavathaaram. This one is a must move. I'm sorry, if I've come across as harsh, but it needs to happen. Universal Hero (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but... This being the English Wikipedia WP:UE applies, so "If you knew Tamil" isn't going to be a very effective argument. More importantly though, what is the difference between the two words? The only difference that I see is the presence of a "(film)" disambiguator, but other then that both words are exactly the same. Anyway, it may have been a mega hit in India, but I don't see how that matters to an English audience. I would no more expect to see any Tamil subject become primary topic over an English subject here on en.wikipedia then I would expect to see an English topic become primary over a Tamil one on ta.wikipedia.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I referred to the languages, it was meant to mean that both the articles in question mean different things and pronounced differently - which is quite clear from the spellings. Moreover, Wikipedia English is truely the only Wiki which is international and has nearly a thousand-fold more hits in India than it's Hindi counterpart. The page has to return to it's original page. Universal Hero (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    but in "Kanthaswamy (film)" and "Kanthaswamy", both are spelled exactly the same. *confused*
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean "Kandasamy" and "Kanthaswamy" Universal Hero (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...OK, but that's not what you nominated. Aside form that though, the English references in the article that I've looked at seem to prefer "Kanthaswamy" rather heavily. I see one use of "Kandasamy", and one of "Kandaasamy".
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The film was released across theatres as "Kanthaswamy" hence the main name, the others are just mere spelling errors when anglicizing the original script. Universal Hero (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, good, that settles it then. The current title is the correct one in accordance with WP:UE and WP:UCN. The next question is around the primary topic aspect. The current page is a disambiguation page, so if there is a primary topic then it should be moved there. This is an apparently popular movie, but will it be usurping any of the people that use "Kanthaswamy" as a surname? They currently all appear to be stubs, and they all seem to be politicians. I don't know anything about Tamil politics though, let alone the movie, and I suspect that most other readers will be the same. What can we point to in order to be assured that the movie is theprimary topic when referring to "Kanthaswamy"?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A 100% yes. When referred to Kanthaswamy, it is very highly unlikely that people will refer to a politician with the name as much. Universal Hero (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on... what? You're personal opinion?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, there's no need for that approach. Believe me, at Google, the first pages are completely full of Kanthaswamy as in the film. And page hits have been exceptionally high for the film, when it was "Kanthaswamy", showing that it is popular an noted. Universal Hero (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is only one "type" of Kandasamy in Tamil. Different people have different spellings for different reasons. Kanthaswamy the movie, i believe, is about a person Kandaswamy. Having Kandasamy with all different spellings to one disambiguation page is the only way to be unambiguous. --L I C 14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would believe K. P. Kandasamy to be the primary topic here. He was a former Minister in Tamil Nadu, and founder of popular Tamil Newspaper, Dinakaran. His page being small is not because he is less notable, but of less interested editors of non-movie topics from that part of India and WP:Recentism. Given a choice, I wouldnt recommend making any article a primary topic as of now. --L I C 14:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. K. P. Kandasamy has under 100 monthly page views,[2] (compare with over 60k page views for Kanthaswamy[3]). Furthermore, it's questionable anyone would type in "kanthaswamy" when looking for the K. P. Kandasamy article. The film is clearly the article that most readers are looking for, and as such it should be at the undisambiguated title. Jafeluv (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Jafeluv got this right. This was an undiscussed move of a much-viewed page to make way for a newly create dab page that links to a bunch of newly-created stubs, none of which could use this title and none of whose titles are spelled even partially the same as the film title. If there are similarities in Tamil, then have a dab page for clarity, but the film would be far and away the primary topic even if it didn't have a unique title on WP. As an undiscussed and now contested move, it should be an automatic revert and then discussed as a move to (film). Station1 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (January 2011)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kanthaswamy (film) → Kanthaswamy — I am not satisfied at all with the previous discussion. Technically because there is no other page with the name Kanthaswamy in the English Wikipedia. The page Kanthaswamy also redirects to this page. I personally think the word (film) is redundant in the title but I might be wrong. Let's have a discussion again alright. I really appreciate all of your feedback. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 08:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to recap the previous discussion. User:Erik opposed the move because he said that there is no reason for the name of a film to be a primary topic over multiple people who have that surname. I did a check ten times in the English Wikipedia and yet I don't find anyone with the spelling Kanthaswamy as their family name. User:Like I Care said that There is only one "type" of Kandasamy in Tamil, but we are talking about Kanthaswamy, not Kandasamy, although I get User:Like I Care's point that in the Tamil language, both of the name's spelling is the same (கந்தசாமி, Kantacāmi). Lastly, I don't understand why the previous discussion has no consensus although many Wikipedians gave out their points supporting the page move. I'm sorry if my words are harsh and I hope that someone can guide me if any of my points are wrong. Sorry again and thanks for reading my opinion. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 08:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just receive a message regarding this and I think it should be move to Kanthaswamy coz there is no other page about Kanthaswamy so why not just move it. As for now I don't think any other problem for moving the page. Even I have tried this!! (Pravinraj (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. Not only is this the only use of "Kanthaswamy" as an article title on WP, and not only has Kanthaswamy redirected here for more than a year with no problem, but even if you include Kandasamy plus everything listed on that page, this would still be the primary topic by a factor of better than 6:1 based on pageviews last month. Station1 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above. – ukexpat (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Station1; I redact my previous argument based on the evidence that the name is not used in any other Wikipedia articles' titles. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks guys for all of your comments in the discussion! I totally appreciate it. =) Also, I would like to apologise to User:Erik and User:Like I Care if any of my statements were harsh in the recap. Sorry guys! -_- Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, primary topic, no real doubt.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kanthaswamy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 11:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanthaswamy. 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) 04:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanthaswamy&oldid=1205870676"