#Imsai arasan 23am pulikesi mio free#

But the lead in Chandralekha (a FA) reads, 'also spelled Chandraleka' with a footnote. :P - Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Also in Puthiya Paravai, there is a sentence that says, 'also spelt Pudhiya Paravai,' is that good, Viriditas? - Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Ssven, actually PP does not have that sentence anymore. You can put the blame on the sources for that. Viriditas ( talk) 07:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC) If you type Puthiya Paravai or Pudhiya Paravai, both redirect to Puthiya Paravai (An article brought to GA status by me and Kailash29792 yesterday night). Do you think the article should make a note that two different titles were used? A mention in the 'Notes' section would be fine if you think it should. Viriditas ( talk) 07:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC) What is it you want me to do, Viriditas? - Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC) If I visited any of those links and was brought here instead, I would wonder why the title was different. Did the film have several different titles (a primary and an alternate, in most cases)? Can you explain why this is the case? In other words, why does the article currently sit at this title rather than the other? If it is, should the article make a note of it? A footnote to explain the use of both titles would work and is generally best practice if a film uses multiple titles. Kailash29792 ( talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I'm still trying to figure this out. Ssven2 speak 2 me 06:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I think this is already fine as it is, because 23m redirects to this article now, and anything linking to that actually links to this. But, both are correct and signify the same translation ie meaning. Many newspapers named the films as either one of the two versions. Surely, these should be fixed if this is the correct title? Why are there two different titles? Viriditas ( talk) 05:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Any idea why there were two different versions for so many years? There are still quite a number of articles that link to the duplicate (but alternately named topic). The page histories indicate that until recently, two duplicate articles on this subject existed, the current version Imsai Arasan 23am Pulikesi (created вЂЋвЂЋ) and Imsai Arasan 23m Pulikesi (created 21 July 2006вЂЋ).LS1979 ( talk) 12:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC) GA Review GA toolbox As for the copyright, if it was taken from the BBC website, it is doubtful that it is a freely licensed image, so I've removed it from this talk page as well. The Indian person mentioned in that paragraph might be a better fit for an illustration, or it might help if limited fair use images (marked as such as and uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons as per WP:NFCC) from the film were used. I don't think Salvador Dali is the best image for this article, even if he was an inspiration for the moustache. LS1979 ( talk) 13:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Having looked at MOS:IMAGE, it does say images should be directly relevant.

#Imsai arasan 23am pulikesi mio free#

(also got query as to whether image is rightfully uploaded as CC-BY-SA.) LS1979 ( talk) 12:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Refactored above comment, because I removed the image from the talk page because it's not free content. I'll put it back if it's permitted, but I think it's tangential at best to the actual article. Taken out this image, pending a review of the MOS, because I'm not sure it fits with the context of the film. 3 Avoid beginning a sentence with a number.