User talk:Sush150

There is no problem with the size of posters exceeding 100KB. Just their resolution shouldn't be too large. Please read WP:IMAGERES. In fact, posters even as low as 220px are acceptable, read this for more info. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: this and this, the |music= parameter of the film infobox was designed for score composer, i.e. the person who wrote the incidental background music. The introduction of incidental songs into this parameter is a secondary usage, and per the current template instructions should probably not even be included. The instructions read: Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included. So your repeated submission of this incorrect formatting, particularly with the justification "Generally Music composers are primary then score composer", is incorrect. If you want this to change, you will need to seek out a new consensus. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but, music composers add first then add score composer this format was followed by many film articles. So I will be doing same. Sush150 (talk)

If you do the same without first establishing a special consensus, like, say, at WT:ICTF or Template talk:Infobox film, it will not be consistent with the purpose of the parameter, and you could be subject to having your editing privileges interrupted. Just because some articles are shaped by people who don't bother to learn what the rest of the film community wants, doesn't mean that you are at liberty to do so. I'm not sure why this is confusing to you or why it is a point of contention. You might have a stronger argument if we were talking about a film that is decidedly a musical like The King and I, but we are not. The interstitial music in Indian films don't always have relevance to the plot, so they are often incidental, rather than essential. But that is something you can argue about if/when you open that consensus discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I just wanted to follow up with you about using iTunes as a reference and linking to YouTube. The first is addressed by WP:NOTRSMUSIC: "Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided." The second is discussed at WP:YOUTUBE. In my interpretation of that guildeline, the YouTube links in questions as external links should not be used per WP:ELNO #4 (Links mainly intended to promote a website) and #5 (Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services...). I can see how these might be interpreted differently, so I've begun a conversation at WT:FILM to attempt to get more views. BOVINEBOY2008 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep up the good work. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk:Thank you for consideration. Sush150 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. This is for your contribution to film and TV related articles. You deserve it . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, WP:ELMIN allows one social site handle if verified and if there is no official website present. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Love you editings! Thank you for helping me in my created articles! You're one of the best Wikipedian! Thanks.	Orbit Wharf 16:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orbit Wharf: Thank you for consideration. Sush150 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar from a sock user? You have been a lucky one. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your consistent work on Bollywood films over so many years! Your work is appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk2.0:Thanks a lot 🙏 Sush150 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently changed the link on Chhaava that I had added. I’d like to kindly point out that my original link contains accurate and reliable information, which is relevant to the context of the article.

The current edit seems to replace a correct and informative source with something less appropriate. I kindly request you to restore the original link or share your reasoning for the change. If needed, I’d be happy to provide further evidence supporting the validity of my link. AyyanaliGavandi (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per this [1] you added source is not reliable. Sush150 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Baaghi 4 film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shubman Gill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahmadabad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mere Husband Ki Biwi. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connect to User:संदीपमीना? You both have edit warred the same edits on this page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think I am doing any kind of mistake here. According to WP:ICTFSOURCES all sources like NDTV, India Today, The Times of India, The Indian Express and Bollywood Hungama are reliable sources. But you are still revert all edits. There are many film articles these sources are used but you have problems with only this article. Sush150 (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mere Husband Ki Biwi film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sush150, I see you have removed the Pinkvilla source (a reliable source) which I had added to multiple movie articles. When different sources report different Box Office collections its always a custom to maintain a range in box office collections, as its quiet evident in Indian cinema. As per WP:INCINE, it states "Keep in mind that an estimate that is a few hours more recent isn't necessarily more accurate, higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option. (Ex: "gross = ₹30–40 million")"

Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source is enough. Bollywood Hungama is more accurate and reliable. Why we add multiple sources to create confusion. Sush150 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesnt mean other one is unreliable right. If you see the List of highest-grossing Indian films, all the films are backed by a range. Usually when sources differ, a range would be ideal. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, There is no need to add different sources as on source is enough. Also you given proof of that list as you personally added at 10 days ago by help of pinkvilla. Sush150 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had added just for one film. There are around 50 films which was already present, they all had a range in it. Again I am stating this line ""Keep in mind that an estimate that is a few hours more recent isn't necessarily more accurate, higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option. (Ex: "gross = ₹30–40 million")".

We cannot just depend on one source i.e. Bollywood Hungama, when different sources report different numbers we have to report that range. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay your opinion on this? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one film, you added last two years higest grossing Hindi films list 2023 and 2024. It's not part of higest range number but generally prefer only Bollywood Hungama. I don't know about pinkvilla collection accurate or not but not prefer. Sush150 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about someones preference here, both Bollywood hungama and Pinkvilla are reliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Anyway, I will raise a discussion in the WT:ICTF to get everyones opinion on this. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are already running discussion about pinkvilla. Please refer [2] Sush150 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sush150, I don't usually join in other people's conversations, but Tonyy Starkk has asked me to comment.
This discussion appears to centre on 2 comments: "One source is enough." and "Bollywood Hungama is more accurate and reliable" taking these in turn:-

I know of no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says there should only be one source. There is an essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill (an editor's opinion , not a policy or guideline), which suggests "When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones." Although I can't find specific guidance, custom and practice has been no more than three references. More directly relevant, WP:ICTFMOS states "all Indian film financial details are based on trade estimates and should not be taken as gospel. There is significant corruption surrounding these financial details and figures are often inflated and deflated by producers and competitors for various reasons of self-interest. .... .... higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option." - So WP:ICTFMOS supports a range.

"Bollywood Hungama is more accurate and reliable" - I know of no WP:Reliable source that ranks the accuracy of the publications that issue estimates. There have been several discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force about the reliability of numerous sources. There have been several discussions specifically about Pinkvilla, but these have been attacked by socks unhappy at Pinkvilla's reports that their favourite films aren't doing well at the box-office. Unless there is a different decision on their inclusion on the WP:ICTFSOURCES we should treat all sources on that list equally.

I note that, since I started my reply here (which has repeatedly been interrupted by IRL events) Tonyy Starkk has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. I suggest the discussion continues there, where other interested editors can contribute. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]